## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 12

- 1391 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. D AXT RE LL R OB I NS ON, D ef endant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 04- CR-20063

—Mi ch ael P . M cC us key, Judge

.
S UB MI TT ED A UGUS T 20, 2012

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 7, 2012

Befo re C UDAH Y, K ANN E , an d S YKES, C ircu it Judges. P ER C UR I AM . Daxtre l l Robinson m ove d the di st ri ct c o ur tt o r e du ce hi s s e nt e nc e b a s e d o n r e t r o a c t i v e a men dm en ts t o the S en te nc i ngGui del i ne s and th e F ai r S en te n c in g A c t. See 18 U .S

. C

. § 3582(c)(2). Th e d istri ct cou rt denie d the m oti on. Because Robinson was se ntenced to the s tatutor y m i ni m um and the Fair S entencing Act d o e s n o ta p p l y t o h i m, w e a ffi r m. R o b i n s o n p l e a d e d g u i l t y i n 2 0 0 5 t o p o s s e s s i n g 5 0 g r a ms or m or e of c ra c k c oc ain e. See 21 U. S

. C. § 8 41 ( a) ( 1)
. The2 N o. 12

- 1391 gov er nm ent fi l ed a re ci divi sm enhancem ent, w hi ch ra i sed th e m i ni m um pri son ter m f orthi s o ffense to 20 ye ar s. Se ei d. § § 84 1(b) ( 1) ( A)( i i i ) , 8 51 ( 20 04 )
. The dist ri ct c ourti m posed the m i ni m um se ntence of20 ye ar s. Three yea rs l ate r Robi nson m ove d u n d er§ 3582 ( c) ( 2) to r edu ce hi s se nt en ce b ased on a m en dm en ts 7 06 a nd 71 3 t o th e g u id elin es , w h ich ret ro ac tiv ely re d u c ed h is b as e o ffen se lev el fro m 32 t o 2 8 . U .S.S.G . A p p . C , Vo l. III 22 6- 23 1, 2 53 (201 1)
. The di st r i ctc o ur t den i ed th e m oti on because Robi nson’ s sente nce w as bas ed o n the s t a t ut o r y mi ni mum, wh i c h r e mai ne d u nc ha ng e d. Aft erthr ee mor e y ears , Ro bins o n fi l ed a se co nd § 35 82 ( c) ( 2) mot i on in 201 1, thi s ti m e as k i ngthe dist ri ct c ourtto applyto h im the Fai r Se ntenci ng Act of 2 01 0, P u b . L . N o. 11 1-2 20 , § 2(a )(2) , 124 Sta t. 23 72 . I f the Ac ta pp l i e d t o R o b i ns o n, h e wo ul d h a v e f a c e d a m andator y m i ni m um penal ty of 10 yea rs ra ther than 20 ye ar s. C o m pa re21 U .S. C. § 8 41(b) ( 1) ( B)( i i i ) ( 2006 & Su p p . IV 20 10 ), w ith i d. § 8 41 ( b) ( 1) ( A)( i i i ) ( 20 04 )
. The d i s t r i c tc o u r td e n i e d th e mo t i o n b e c a u s e , i tr e a s o ne d, th e F ai r S en te nc i ngActdi d no t appl y t o Ro bins o n, w hose cr i m e andsent en cing bot h took p lace long before the Act. I n 2 01 2 Ro bins o n a g ain mov ed to r edu ce hi s se nt e nc e , thi s t i me b a s e d o n the c o mbi ne d e ffe c t s o fa men dm en ts 748 a nd 7 50 to th e g ui del i ne s an d the F ai r S en te n c in g A c t. See U
. S. S. G. Supp. to A pp . C, Vol

. III 3 74- 84, 391- 98 ( 2011 )
. The am endm ents , effecti ve N ove m ber1, 20 11, r etr oac ti vel y r educed fr om 28 to 26 the base offense l eve l f orRobi nson’ s co nd uct. U
. S. S. G. § 2 D1. 1( c) ( 7)N o. 12

- 1391 3 & cm t. n .10 (D ). I f th e F a i r Sen te n c in g A c t re d u c es h is m andator y m i ni m um , hi s gui del i nes ra nge w oul d b e ten y ea r s. Ro bins o n ask ed the di st r i ctc o ur t to a ppl y the g ui del i ne s amendment s r et r o ac ti ve ly to r edu ce hi s se nte nc e. The di st r i ctc o ur t den i ed the mot i o n, a g ain, re sta ti ng i ts concl usion that the A ct di d not a pp l y t o Robi nson, and the m andator y m i ni m um se ntence of 20 yea rs r em ai ns i ntact. On app eal, Robi nson a rgues that the ten- yea r m andato ry m in im u m u n d er th e F air Sen te n c in g A c t s h ou ld appl y t o hi m s o that he c anb e se nt en ce d unde r the a men de d gui de l i ne s r a ng e . ( Th e g o v e r nme ntdo e s not ar gue tha t the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s dec i si o n l as t y ea r r efus i ng to apply the Act r etr oac ti vely t o R ob inson pr ecl ud es hi m fro m r el i ti gat i ng the m atter, so l i ke the par ti es w e pr oce ed to the m er i ts. ) S ecti on 35 82 (c) ( 2) per m i ts a co ur t to r edu ce the t er m o fi m pr i so nm en t i fthe defe nd ant’ s s entencing r ange “has subsequentl y b een l o wer ed bythe S en te nc i ngCo m m i ss i o n” a nd “ su cha re du cti on i s co nsi ste nt with appli cab l e pol i cy sta tem ents i ss ue d by th e S en te nc i ngCo m m i ss i o n. ” As f o r the s ec o nd condi ti on, A pp l i cati on N ote 1( A ) o fU
. S. S. G. § 1 B1. 10 provi des thata re du cti on i s inconsi ste nt w ith that pol i cy sta tem ent i f“the am endm en t d oes nothave the effect ofl oweri ng the defendant’s appli cabl e g uidel i ne r ange bec au se of the op eration of anoth er gu ideline or statu tory p rovisi on (e .g ., a statu tory m an d atory m inim um term ofi m pri sonm ent)
. ” S e eUn i t e dS t a t e s v . F or m an , 5 53 F. 3d 58 5, 58 8 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ); U nited Sta tes v. P o o le, 55 0 F
. 3d 67 6, 67 9 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); U ni t e d St at e s v. O sbo rn , 67 9 F. 3d 1193 , 11 95 n. 1 ( 10th Cir

. 20 12). T hus, unl ess the A ct4 N o. 12

- 1391 appli es to Robi nson, hi s a pp l i cabl e guidel i ne r ange re m ai ns co nstr ai ned by the o perat i on o fthe 20- yea r m andator y m i ni m um se ntence. Robi nson m ai ntains , a s he did i n hi s s eco nd m oti on und er Se cti on 3582 ( c) ( 2) , that th e A c t’s reduced m an d at or y m in im u m a p p lies to h im ev en th ou gh h is conduct andse ntence both occ urr ed b ef or e Au gust 3, 2010 , the A ct’ s effecti ve date. H e c i tes D o rsey v . U nited St a tes , 13 2 S

. Ct. 23 21 ( 2012 ) , to support hi s a rgum ent. Bu t D ors ey p r o v i d e s Ro b i ns o nn o r e l i e f

. T h e S u p r e me C ou rt i n D ors ey he l d o nl y tha t “Co ng r es s i nt en ded the Fa ir Se n te n c in g A c t’s n ew , l ow er m a n d at or y m in im um s t o apply to the po st -A ct sen ten cing of p r e -A ct offenders. ” Id. at23 35 ( em phasi s a dd ed). The A ct’ s l ower m andat o r y mi ni mums do n o ta pp l y t o o ffe nd e r s , l i ke Robi nson, sente nced bef or e i ts effecti ve date. T h e C ourt s o fA p p e a l s u n a n i mo u s l y s o h e l d b e f o r e th e S u p r e me Co ur tde c i de d D ors ey. Se e, e . g. , U nited Sta tes v. B a pti st, 646 F
. 3d 12 25 , 12 29 ( 9th Ci r . 20 11 ) ( co l l ec ting ca se s)
. And D o rseyc ar eful l y c o nfi ne d i ts a ppl i ca ti o n o fthe F ai r S en tenci ng Act to pre- A c t offender s who w er e s entence d a fterthe Act
. Ro bins o n, the r efo r e, ha s r ec ei ved th e l owest pos sibl e s entence under the st atute
. A FFI RMED .

9- 7- 12