FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T FEB 03, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 13 49 7

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 0 4- 60 19 2 C R-M GC

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us
EDW ARD MELVIN,
Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Febru ar y 3 , 20 09 )
Befo re TJ OFLAT, BLACK and COX, Circ ui t J ud ge s.
PER CURI AM:

W e d eci de in th is ap pe al whe th er Uni te d St at es v. Boo ker , 54 3 U.S. 22 0, 1 25

S. Ct

. 73 8 (2 00 5) , an d Ki mbr ou gh v. Uni te d St at es ,

__ U.S.

__ , 12 8 S. Ct

. 55 8 (2 00 7) ,
pr oh ib it Co ng res s or th e Sen te nc in g C om m is si on fro m li m it in g th e di sc ret io n of adi st ric t co ur t in red uc in g a se nt en ce un de r 18 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2)

. Co nc lu di ng th at

Boo ker an d Ki mbr ou gh do no t ap pl y to § 35 82 ( c ) ( 2 ) pr oc eed in gs , we ho ld th at a
di st ric t c o u r t i s bo un d by th e li m it at io ns on it s di sc ret io n im po se d by § 35 82 (c)( 2)

an d t he ap pl ic ab le po li cy st at em en ts by the Sen te nc in g C om m is si on

. I. BACKG ROUND

In 20 04 , Ed ward Mel vi n pl ead ed gu il ty t o th ree co un ts ch a rg in g di st rib ut io n

an d po ss es si on wit h in te nt to d i s t r i b ut e crac k co cai ne wit hi n 1,0 00 feet of a pl ay gr ou nd , in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ) an d 86 0. Mel vi n’s la st se nt en ci ng

w a s in Sep te m

be r of 20 06 , fo ll owi ng pr io r ap pe al s th at res ul te d in rem an d s f o r

res en te nc in g.
Und er th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s, Mel vi n’s to ta l of fen se le ve l was 25 an d hi s
cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y was V, whi ch y ie ld ed a se nt en ci ng gu id el in e ran ge of 10 0

to 12 5 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. The di st ric t co ur t, m in df ul th at th e gu id el in es were

m erel y ad vi so ry un de r Bo o k er , se nt en ced Mel vi n to 10 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t on
each co un t, to ru n co nc ur ren tl y
. On Aug us t 15 , 20 07 , th es e se nt en ces were affi rm ed

on di rect ap pe al

. Uni te d S ta te s v. Mel vi n , 24 1 F . App ’x 69 2, 6 97 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ).

On Nov em

be r 1, 20 07 , th e Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on pr om

ul ga te d

Am en dm en t 70 6 (la te r am en de d by Am en dm en t 71 1) to th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s,
whi ch red uc e d t h e ba se of fen se le ve l fo r crac k co cai ne of fen se s two le ve ls

.

2Am en dm en t 70 6, as a men d e d by Am en dm en t 71 1, is ret ro act iv e. U.S. Sen te nc in g

Gui de li ne s M an ua l § 1B 1.1 0( c) (2 00 8)

. On Mar ch 3, 20 08 , Mel vi n fil ed a m ot io n to red uc e hi s se nt e n c e s u n d er 18

U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) , arg ui ng th at hi s of fen se le ve l un de r th e am en de d gu id el in es was

no w 23 , wit h a se nt en ci ng ran ge of 84 to 10 5 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Mel vi n as ke d
th e di st ric t co ur t fo r a red uc ti on in hi s se nt en ces th at wou ld refl ect th e n e w lo wer

gu id el in e ran ge

. Mel vi n al so as ke d th e di st ric t co ur t fo r red uc ed se nt en ces th at were

ev en lo wer th an th e am en de d gu id el in e ran ge , a rg ui ng th at Boo ker an d Ki mbr ou gh

ren de red all gu id el in es ad vi so ry on ly, ev en in a § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) pr oc eed in g.
The di st ric t co ur t ag reed wit h Mel vi n, an d red uc ed hi s se nt en ces to 75 m on th s’
im pr is on m en t on each co un t, wit h th e se nt en ces to ru n co nc ur ren tl y , ev en th ou gh th e

ap pl ic ab le gu id el i n e r a n g e aft er Am en dm en t 70 6 was 84 to 10 5 m on th s. The

Gov ern m en t ap pe al s.
II . ISSUE S ON APPEAL AND CONTENTI ONS OF TH E PARTIE S
The is su e on ap pe al is whe th er Boo ker an d Ki mbr ou gh pr ecl ud e Co ng res s an d
th e Sen te nc in g Co m

m is si on fro m pl aci ng a n y l i mita ti on on th e ex te nt to whi ch a

se nt en ce ca n b e red uc ed un de r 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ).
The Gov ern m en t co nt en ds th at Boo ker an d Ki mbr ou gh do no t ap pl y to
red u ct io ns in se nt en ces m ad e pu rs ua nt to § 35 82 (c)( 2)

. Mel vi n res po nd s th at an y

3li m it at io n Co ng res s an d th e Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on pl ace up on a se nt en ce red uc ti on

un de r § 35 82 (c)( 2) is eq ui va le nt to a m an da to ry se nt en ci ng gu id el in e, whi ch Boo ker

an d Ki m brou

gh pr oh ib it

. Add it io na ll y , Mel vi n arg ue s tha t Ki m brou gh , ind ep en de ntl y

o f Boo ker , ren de rs al l crac k co cai ne gu id el in es pu rel y ad vi so ry , reg ard le ss of th e

co nt ex t i n wh ic h t he y

are ap pl ie d.

II I. STANDARD OF REVIE W

W e r e v ie w de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s de te rm in at io n of th e sc op e of it s

au th or it y to red uc e a s en te nc e un de r 18 U.S.C. § 35 82

. Uni te d S ta te s v. Whi te , 30 5

F.3 d 1 26 4, 1 26 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2)

. IV. DIS CUSSI ON
The Gov ern m en t arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in no t fo ll owi ng th e cl ear
la ng ua ge o f 18 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) , whi ch pr ecl ud es red uc ti on of a se nt en ce in a

m an ne r in co ns is te nt wit h an y ap pl ic ab le po li cy st at em en ts is su ed by th e Sen te nc in g
Co m m is si on . The s ta tu te pro vi de s:
The co ur t m ay no t m od ify a te r m o f i m pr is on m en t on ce it ha s be en im po se d e xc ep t t ha t--
* * * (2 ) in th e cas e of a de fen da nt who ha s be en se nt en ced to a te rm of im

pr is on m en t ba se d on a se nt en ci ng ran ge th at ha s su bs eq ue nt ly be en lo wered by th e Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. 99 4( o) , up on m ot io n of th e

4de fen da nt or th e Dire ct or of th e Bu reau of Pri so ns , or on it s own m ot io n, th e co ur t may red uc e th e te rm of i mp ris on m en t, aft er co ns id eri ng th e fact or s se t fo rth in
s e c t i o n 35 53 (a) to th e ex te nt th at th ey are ap pl ic ab le , if
su ch a re du ct io n is c o n s i st en t wi th ap pl ic ab le po li cy st at emen ts is su ed

by th e S en te nc in g C

ommi ss io n.
18 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c) (em

ph as is ad de d)

. The po li cy st at em en t ge ne ral ly ap pl ic ab le to § 35 82 (c)( 2) pr oc eed in gs fir st te ll s th e di st ri ct co ur t ho w to cal cu la te a ne w

se nt en ci ng gu id el in e ran ge :
In de te rm in in g whe th er, an d to wha t ex te nt , a red uc ti o n i n t he de fen da nt ’s te rm of im

pr is on m en t un de r 18 U.S.C. 35 82 (c)( 2) an d th is po li cy st at em en t is warra nt ed , th e co ur t sh al l de te rm in e th e a men de d gu id el in e ran ge th at wou ld ha ve be en ap pl ic ab le to th e de fen da nt if th e am en dm en t(s ) to th e gu id el in es li st ed in su bs ect io n ( c) ha d be en in effe ct at th e ti m e th e de fen da nt was se nt en ced

. I n mak in g su ch de te rm in at io n, th e co ur t sh al l su bs ti tu te on ly t he am en dm en ts li st ed in
s ub se ct io n (c) fo r th e co rres po nd in g gu id el in e pr ov is io ns th at w e r e a p p li ed whe n th e de fen da nt was se nt en ced an d sh al l le av e al l ot he r gu id el in e ap pl ic at io n d eci si on s u na ffec te d.

U

. S

. Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s Man ua l § 1B 1.1 0( b) (1 ) (2 00 8)

. The po li cy st at e men t

go es on to in st ru ct th e di st ric t co ur t no t to red uc e a se nt en ce be lo w th e ne w gu id el in e

ran ge : “ th e co ur t sh al l no t red uc e th e de fen da nt ’s te rm of im pr is on m en t un de r 18

U.S.C. 35 82 (c)( 2) an d th is po li cy st at em en t to a te rm th at is les s t ha n t he m in im um

o f t he am en de d gu id el in es ran ge de te rm in ed un de r [§ 1B 1.1 0( b) (1 )].” Id

. at §

1B 1.1 0( b) (2 )(A). Fo ll owi ng th e po li cy st at em en t , t h e am en de d gu id el in e ran ge in
th i s c a s e i s 84 to 10 5 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, an d th eref

or e th e po li cy st at em en t

5pr oh ib it s th e red uc ti on of Mel vi n’s se nt en ces to a te rm of im pr is on m en t le ss th an 84

m on th s.
The Gov ern m en t arg ue s, th eref or e, t h a t th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld no t ha ve
red uc ed Mel vi n’s se nt en ces be lo w 84 m on th s, th e lo wes t te rm of im pr is on m en t un de r
th e am en de d gu id el in es

. The Gov ern men t u r g e s us to va cat e th e di st ric t co ur t’s
red uc ti on of Mel vi n’s se nt en ces to 75 m on th s. Mel vi n res po nd s th at , whi le it is tru e
th a t th e am en de d gu id el in es pr ov id e fo r se nt en ces of no le ss th an 84 m on th s, th es e

gu id el in es , ev en in a pr oc eed i n g un de r § 35 82 (c)( 2) , are m erel y ad vi so ry aft er th e
Su pr em e Co ur t de ci si on s in Boo ker an d Ki mbr ou gh

. He a rg ue s th at th e po li cy

st at em en t’s la ng ua ge , whi ch fo rb id s th e red uc ti on of th e se nt en ce to a te rm of

im pr is on m en t le ss th an th e am en de d gu id el in es pr ov id e, c r eat es a m an da to ry

se nt en ci ng gu id el in e th at is im pe rm is si bl e aft er Boo ker

an d Ki mbr ou gh

. Fo ur ot he r ci rcu it s ha ve di rect ly ad dr es se d th is is su e; th ree of th em ha ve he ld
th at Boo ker

an d Ki mbr ou gh do no t ap pl y to § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io ns

. Uni te d S ta te s v.
St ar ks ,

__ F .3d

__ , No. 08 -2 59 0, 20 09 W L 66 11 5 (8 th Ci r. Ja n. 13 , 20 09 ); Uni te d

St at es v. Dun

ph y , __ F.3d

__ , No. 08 -6 91 9, 2 00 9 WL 19 13 9 (4 th Cir . Jan 5, 2 00 9) ;
Uni te d St at es v. Rho de s , 54 9 F.3 d 83 3 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 08 ). Am on g th e ci rcu it s, on ly th e
Nin th Ci rcu it ha s he ld th at Boo ker pr oh ib it s an y li m it a t i o n o n a di st ric t co ur t’s

6d i sc ret io n in red uc in g a se nt en ce un de r § 35 82 (c)( 2)

. Uni te d St at es v. Hick s , 4 7 2

F.3 d 1 16 7 (9 th Cir . 20 07 ).

W e ag ree wit h th os e ci rcu it s th at ha ve he ld th at Boo ker an d Ki mbr ou gh do no t

pr oh ib it th e li m it at io ns on a jud ge ’s di sc ret io n in red uc in g a se nt en ce i m po se d b y §

35 82 (c)( 2) an d t he ap pl ic ab le po li cy st at em en t b y

th e Sen te nc in g C om m is si on

. Fi rs t, we ag ree th at , whe reas Boo ker cl earl y ap pl ie s to or ig in al se nt en ci ng

pr oc eed in gs , it do es no t ad dr es s m ot io ns to red uc e a se nt en ce un de r § 35 82 (c)( 2)

. St ar ks , 20 09 W L 66 11 5, at *2 ; Dun ph y , 20 09 W L 19 13 9, at *4 ; Rho de s , 54 9 F.3 d at
83 9- 84 0. A pr oc eed in g un de r § 35 82 (c)( 2) is no t a fu ll res en te nc in g he ari ng

. Uni te d

St at es v. Bra vo , 20 3 F.3 d 77 8, 78 1 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 01 ). In de ed , a de fen da nt ’s se nt en ce

can no t be in crea se d u n d e r § 35 82 (c)( 2) , an d th us no ne of th e co nc ern s in Boo ker
ab ou t a jud ge in crea si ng a de fen da nt ’s se nt en ce ba se d on fact s no t fo un d by a jury are

pr es en t in a pr oc eed in g un de r § 35 82 (c)( 2)

. Se e St ar ks , 20 09 W L 66 11 5, at *3 (h ol di ng th at na rro w sc op e of § 35 82 (c)( 2) pr oc eed in g di st in gu is he s it f ro m

se nt en ci ng pr oc eed in gs at is su e in Boo ker ); Dun ph y , 20 09 W L 19 13 9, at *4 (s am e);
Rho de s , 54 9 F .3d at 8 39 -4 0 (s am e).

Seco nd , Boo ker ex ci se d al l th e st at ut or y pr ov is io ns of th e Sen te nc in g Refo rm
Act of 19 84 whi ch pr ov id ed fo r th e ki nd of m an da to ry se nt en ci ng gu id el in es Boo ker

pr oh ib it ed

. It is si gn ifi can t, th eref or e, th at Boo ker di d no t ex c is e § 35 82 (c)( 2)

. To

7rem ed y th e co ns ti tu ti on al de fect it sa w in th e ap pl ic at io n of th e m an da to ry gu id el in es ,

th e Co ur t ex ci se d 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (b ) an d 18 U.S.C. § 3 74 2( e), an d t he n d ecl ared ,

“ W it h th es e two se ct io ns ex ci se d

. . . , th e rem ai nd er of th e [Sen te nc in g Refo rm ] Act [o f 19 84 ] sa ti sf

ie s th e Co ur t’s co ns ti tu ti on al req ui rem en ts .” Boo ker , 54 3 U.S. at 25 9,

12 5 S. C t

. a t 7 6 4

. The Boo ker Co ur t’s de ci si on no t to ex ci se § 35 82 (c)( 2) , ev en
th ou gh it on ly al lo ws a di st ric t co ur t t o r e d u c e a pr is on er’s se nt en ce if su ch a
red uc ti on wou ld be co ns is te n t wit h ap pl ic ab le po li cy st at em en ts is su ed by th e
Sen te nc in g Co m

m is si on , is st r o n g e v i de nc e th at § 35 82 (c)( 2) do es no t vi ol at e th e
ho ld in g of Boo ker

. Se e St a r k s , 20 09 W L 66 11 5, at *2 (d is cu ss in g Boo ker Co ur t’s
de ci si on to no t ex ci se § 35 82 (c)( 2) ); Dun ph y , 20 09 W L 19 13 9, at *4 (s am e). In de ed ,

we pr ev io us ly ha ve sa id th at “ Boo ker is in ap pl ic ab l e t o § 35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io ns .” 1

Uni te d S ta te s v. Mo re no , 42 1 F .3d 12 17 , 12 20 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ).

Eve n if we were to co ns tru e Boo ker as ap pl y in g to § 35 82 (c)( 2) pr oc eed in gs , th ere is no m an da to ry se nt en ci ng gu id el in e th at wou ld ru n afo ul of Boo ker . As th e
Fo ur th Ci rcu it no te d in Dun ph y , th er e a re no m an da to ry gu id el in es un de r §

35 82 (c)( 2) si nc e a co ur t is no t req ui red to red uc e a m ov an t’s s e n t en ce. 20 09 W L

19 13 9, at *4 ; s ee al

so U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Sp ei

gh ts , 56 1 F. Su pp .2d 12 77 , 12 79 (S.D.

I n Moreno , we addre ssed whether Booke r alone, absent a retroa ctive amendmen t to the 1 g uidelines, was sufficie nt to permit a defe ndant to seek a sentenc e reduc tion under § 3582(c) (2). We held that it was not.
8Ala. 20 08 ) (d is cu ss in g di sc ret io na ry na tu re of de ci si on to ev en red uc e se nt en ce at al l

un de r § 3 58 2( c)(2 )).

Fi na ll y , we di sa gr ee wit h Mel vi n tha t Ki m brou gh co ul d ap pl y he re ev en th ou gh

Boo ker do es no t. The Ki mbr ou gh Co ur t ex pl ic it ly st at ed th at , “ W e gr an te d cert io rari

. . . to de te rm in e whe th er t h e crac k/ po wde r di sp ari ty ad op te d in th e Uni te d St at es
Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s ha s bee n ren de red ‘adv is or y ’ by ou r de ci si on in Boo ker .”

__ U.S.

__ , 12 8 S. Ct

. at 56 5- 66 (2 00 7)

. The Co ur t ad dr es se d th e is su e in th e co nt ex t of

an or ig in al se nt en ci ng pr oc eed in g un de r 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 , an d ne it he r m en ti on ed no r
ad dr es se d an y pr oc eed in g u n d e r § 35 82 (c)( 2)

. Id

. at

__ , 12 8 S. Ct

. at 56 4- 65

. Ki mbr ou gh , th eref

or e, do es no t co nt ro l be cau se it ad dr es se s an or ig in al se nt en ci ng

pr oc eed in g u nd er an ad vi so ry gu id el in e syst em

. V. CONCLUSIO N
The di st ric t co ur t was on l y p e r mi tt ed un de r § 35 82 (c)( 2) to red uc e Mel vi n’s

se nt en ces c on si st en t wit h th e ap pl ic ab le po li cy st at em en ts of th e Sen te nc in g
Co m m is si on

. The ap pl ic ab le po li cy st at em en t pr oh ib it s th e di st ric t co ur t’s red uc ti on
of Mel vi n’s se nt en ces to a te rm of im pr is on m en t of le ss th an 84 m on th s. The di st ric t

co ur t erre d in rel y in g on Boo ker an d Ki mbr ou gh to red uc e Mel vi n’s se nt en ces to 75

m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. The refo re, w e VACATE th e di st ric t cou rt’s o rd er redu ci ng

9th e cu st od y se nt en ce an d REMAND wit h in st ru ct io ns to im po se a cu st od y se nt en ce
of no t l es s t ha n 8 4 m on th s.
VACATED AN D REMANDED W ITH INSTRUCTIONS.

10