2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-6-2009 

# U SA v . D e nni s F ree m an P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-4592

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . D e nni s F r e e m an" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 509. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/509NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 08- 4592

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. DE NNI S F RE E M AN, A ppel l ant

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 00- cr - 00692- 001) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le R o b e rt F . K e lly

____________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember22, 2009 B e f o re : B A R R Y , F IS H E R a n d J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: O ct ober6, 2009)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . D enni s Fr eeman appea l s t he or derof the D i s t r i ctC our tdeny i ng i n par thi s m ot i on fo r a red u cti o n in se n tenc e p u rsua n t t o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2). T h e D istri ct C o u rt gr ant ed a s ent ence r educt i on bas ed on an a m endmentt o t he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes for2

cr ack c ocai ne off

ens es , butdeni ed Fr eeman an addi t i onal s ent ence r educt i on under B ookerv. U

ni t ed Stat es , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) . B eca us e Fr eeman’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s a n d a p p lica b le p o licysta tem e n ts w a s re jec ted b yth is c o u rt in U ni t ed Stat es v. D oe , 5 6 4 F . 3 d 3 0 5 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 9 ) , we wi l l a f f i r m. I. W e w r i t e exc l us i vel yfort he part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fa ctual cont extand l egal hi s t or yof thi s cas e. T her efor e, w e w i l l s etfor t h onl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o our analy si s. I n 2002, D enni s Fr eeman pl ed gui l tyt o one countof cons pi r acyt o di s t r i but e cr ack coca i ne bas e i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 846. A thi s s ent enci ng hear i ng, the D i s t r i ct C our tdet erm i ned thatt he bas e off ens e l evel forthe di s t r i but i on of 549. 7 gr ams of cr ack co ca ine w as 3 6 . T h is ba se lev el w as in cre ase d b ytw o leve ls fo r po sses sion o f a firearm in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e o f f e n s e f o r a to ta l o f

f e n s e le v e l o f

3 8 . U .S .S .G . § 2 D 1 .1 (b )( 1 ). Fr eeman w as al s o cl as s i fi ed as a ca r eeroffe nderunder§ 4B 1. 1 bas ed on tw o pr i orfel ony drug co nv i ct i on s, w hich carr i ed an off ense l evel of 37 . B ecause F reem an’s t otal off ense l evel w as gr eat ert han the ca r eeroffe nderl evel , Fr eeman’ s offe ns e l evel fors ent enci ng w as bas ed on the hi gher§ 2D 1. 1 l evel of 38. Fr eeman’ s offe ns e l evel w as then r educe d byt w o level s for accept ance o f res po nsi bil i t yun der § 3E 1. 1(a) for an ad j ust ed o ffen se leve l of 3 6 . F ree m an ’s crim inal h ist o ryca tego ryw as V I ba sed o n 1 3 crim inal h ist o ry po i nts .3

A tt he s ent enci ng hear i ng, Fr eeman as ked the D i s t r i ctC our tforan addi t i onal oneleve l r ed u cti o n fo r t im elyac ce p tanc e o f re sp o n sibil ityu n d er § 3 E 1 . 1 (a), an d a d o w n w ard d ep arture u n d er § 4 A 1 . 3 o n the g rou n d s tha t th e c ri m inal h ist o ryca tego ryo v err epr es ent ed hi s cr i m i nal r ecor d. T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed thes e mot i ons , br i ngi ng Fr eeman’ s adj us t ed off

ens e l evel t o 35 and hi s cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryt o V . T he D i s t r i ctC our tt hen s ent ence d Fr eeman t o a 270 mont h t erm of i m pr i s onm ent , on t he l ow er end o f t he 2 62 t o 3 27 m on t h range setbythe G uidel i nes. E f f e c t i v e No v e mb e r1 , 2 0 0 7 , Am e n d me n t7 0 6 t o th e Gu i d e l i n e s r e d u c e d b ytwo l evel s t he off

ens e l evel s appl i cabl e t o cr ack c ocai ne off ens es . T he C om m i s s i on des i gnat ed the amendm entforr etr oact i ve appl i cat i on. U . S. S. G . A pp. C . , A m end. 713. O n A pr i l 15, 2008, Fr eeman fi l ed a M ot i on t o M odi fyT erm s of I m pr i s onm ent p u rsua n t t o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2) b ase d o n A m en d m en t 70 6 . T h e D istri ct C o u rt det erm i ned that , acc ount i ng fort he tw o- l evel r educt i on pr ovi ded byA m endment706 and t he tw o- l evel i ncr eas e forpos s es s i on of a f i r earm , Fr eeman’ s amended bas e off ens e l evel w as 36. B eca us e the bas e off ens e l evel w as now l es s than the ca r eeroffe nderl evel of 37, the C o u rtfo ll o w ed the m an d ate o f § 4 B 1 . 1 that the s en tenc e b e b ase d o n F ree m an ’s c a re e r o f f e n d e r le v e l. A f

ter a p p ly in g th e o rig in a l th re e -le v e l re d u c tio n f o r tim e ly acc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y , Fr eeman’ s amended offe ns e l evel w as 34 and hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryw as V , m aki ng t he gui del i ne s ent ence r ange 235 t o 293 m ont hs . T he4

D istric t C o u rt se n ten c e d F re e m a n to a 2 3 5 m o n th ter m o f im p riso n m e n t. T h is tim e ly appea l fol l ow ed. II. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on overFr eeman’ s cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on under18 U . S. C . § 3231 and j ur i s di ct i on t o adj udi cat e Fr eeman’ s m ot i on fora r educt i on of s ent ence p u r s u a n tt o 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) . W e h a v e a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 an d 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 (a). W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the Sent enci ng G u id e lin e s, b u t re v iew th e D istric t C o u rt’s u lti m a te d e c isio n to g ra n t o r d e n ya m o tio n to re d u c e s e n te n c e u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c ) f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . U

ni t ed Stat es v. Mat eo , 5 6 0 F . 3 d 1 5 2 , 1 5 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). III . A. F re e m a n a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt w a s n o t b o u n d b yth e p o licysta tem e n t in § 1 B 1. 10 t o ap plya sent ence w i t hin the G uidel i nes fo r hi s car eer offen der l evel because t he Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n B ookerv. U ni t ed Stat es , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , r ender ed al l of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes advi s ory . T hi s ar gum entm i s under s t ands the i m pactof B ookero n a m o ti o n fo r a red u cti o n in se n tenc e u n d er § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2). I n m os tcas es , a di s t r i ctcour tm aynotgr anta r educt i on i n s ent ence aft eri thas b e e n im p o s e d . U

nited S tates v. W

ise , 51 5 F . 3d 20 7, 22 0 (3d C i r. 20 08 ). C on gress has,5

h o w e v e r, g ra n ted d istric t co u rts th e a u th o rityto re d u c e se n ten c e s a f ter th e ya re im p o se d if t he s ent ence i s bas ed on a G ui del i ne r ange thati s l at err educe d bythe Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on. 18 U . S. C . § 3582( c) ( 2) . T hi s author i t yi s cons t r ai ned bythe r equi r ement t hat“s uch a r educt i on i s cons i s t entw i t h appl i cabl e pol i cys t at ement s i s s ued bythe Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on. ” I d. T h e S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s p o licysta tem e n t p ro v id e s th a t w h e n a d istric t co u rt is co n side ri n g a m o ti o n to red u ce a d ef en d an t’ s sen tenc e p u rsua n t t o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 8 2 (c), t he courtm us tdet erm i ne the amended gui del i ne r ange a nd s ubs t i tut e onl ythe amended g u id e lin e p ro v is io n , le a v in g a ll o th e r g u id e lin e a p p lic a tio n s d e c is io n s u n a f f e c te d . See U . S . S . G . § 1 B 1 . 1 0 (b)(1 ). T h e p o li cystat em en t fu rth er p rov ides that a d ef en d an t’ s s ent ence m aynotbe r educe d “t o a t erm thati s l es s than the mi ni m um of the amended gui del i ne r ange de t erm i ned unders ubdi vi s i on ( 1) . ” I d. § 1 B 1 . 1 0 (b)(2 )(A ). Fr eeman ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tcoul d have i gnor ed hi s car eeroffe nder offe ns e l evel and s ent ence d hi m underhi s new adj us t ed bas e off ens e l evel . Fr eeman fur t heras s er t s t hatt he C our tcoul d have r educe d hi s s ent ence t o a t erm even l es s than the ra n g e se t b yth e G u id e lin e s. W h ile F re e m a n d o e s n o t co n ten d th a t su c h a re su lt co m p o rts w i t h § 1B 1. 10, he ar gues t hatt he pol i cys t at ementi s onl yadvi s oryi n l i ghtof B ooker . I n U ni t ed Stat es v. D oe , 564 F. 3d 305 ( 3d C i r . 2009) , w e r ej ect ed the ar gum ent th a t B ookerr ender ed the pol i cys t at ementi n § 1B 1. 10 advi s ory . I ns t ead, w e hel d t hat “[ u ]nd er the ex p ress statutorylang u ag e o f § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2) a n d § 9 9 4 (u), th e C o m m issi o n ’s6

pol i cys t at ement s i m pl ement i ng r etr oact i ve s ent ence r educt i on ar e bi ndi ng. ” I d. a t 3 1 0 . W e r eas oned thathol di ng t he pol i cys t at ement s m andat orydoes notconfl i ctw i t h B ooker b ec au se n eith er B ooker ’ s Si xt h A m endmentcons t i tut i onal hol di ng, nori t s r emedi al hol di ng s t r i ki ng dow n t he s t atut or ypr ovi s i ons thatm ade the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes m a n d a to ry, a re im p lic a te d b ya p ro c e e d in g u n d e r § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ). I d. at312- 14. U nder§ 1B 1. 10 a di s t r i ctcour tm ayonl ys ubs t i tut e amended gui del i nes pr ovi s i ons and mustl eave al l ot hergui del i ne appl i cat i on deci s i ons unaff ect ed. W hi l e the cr ack coca i ne off

ens e l evel w as l ow er ed bytw o l evel s , the ca r eeroffe nderpr ovi s i ons of § 4B 1. 1 r emai n i n for ce. T he D i s t r i ctC our tw as ther efor e r equi r ed t o appl ythe ca r eer offe nderl evel exac t l yas i thad att he or i gi nal s ent enci ng hear i ng. W hen the D i s t r i ct C our tacc ount ed forthe amended cr ack c ocai ne off ens e l evel of 36, the hi ghercar eer o f f e n d e rl e v e l o f

3 7 b e c a m e t h e a p p l i c a b l e s e n t e n c i n g l e v e l u n d e r§ 4 B 1 . 1 . A c c o r d i n g l y, t he D i s t r i ctC our tw as r equi r ed by§ 1B 1. 10 t o s ent ence Fr eeman bas ed on hi s car eer o f f e n d e r le v e l. T he D i s t r i ctC our tw as al s o corr ectthati tcoul d onl yr educe Fr eeman’ s s ent ence as faras t he l ow erend of the gui del i nes r ange f orhi s car eeroffe nderl evel . T he § 1B 1. 10 p o licysta tem e n t is c lea r th a t a d e f e n d a n t’s s e n ten c e m a yn o t b e re d u c e d “ to a ter m th a t is le s s th a n th e m in im u m o f th e a m e n d e d g u id e lin e ra n g e .” U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .1 0 (b )( 2 )( A ). A s di s cus s ed above , Fr eeman’ s amended gui del i ne r ange i s s etbyhi s car eeroffe nder leve l. A cc o u n ti n g fo r th e thre e-lev el red u cti o n fro m the o ri g inal sen tenc ing , F ree m an ’sW e not e, “I ti s w el l s et t l ed thatan appe l l ant ’ s fai l ur e t o i dent i fyorar gue an i s s ue 1 i n hi s openi ng br i ef c ons t i tut es w ai verof thati s s ue on appe al . ” U n itedS ta tes v . P e lu llo , 3 9 9 F . 3 d 1 9 7 , 2 2 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). 7 a d ju s te d c a re e r o f

f e n d e r l e v e l w a s 3 4 , c a rr y in g a m in im u m s e n te n c e o f 2 3 5 m o n th s . B e c a u se F re e m a n ’s a m e n d e d se n ten c e w a s 2 3 5 m o n th s, th e D istric t C o u rt a p p ro p ria tely deni ed Fr eeman’ s m ot i on fora furt herr educt i on i n s ent ence . B. Fort he fi r s tt i m e i n hi s r epl ybr i ef, Fr eeman cont ends thatthe ca r eeroffe nder G ui del i ne pr ovi s i ons , § 4B 1. 1, cannotbe appl i ed t o hi m beca us e athi s i ni t i al s ent enci ng th e D istric t C o u rt re d u c e d h is c rim in a l h isto ryc a teg o ryf ro m V I to V , thu s m a k in g h im i neli gibl e for careeroff end er s t atus. 1 S ect i on 4B 1. 1(a) -( b) defines the requ i rem ents for careeroff end er s t atus and st at es,

“ [ a ] c a re e r o f

f e n d e r' s c rim in a l h isto ryc a teg o ryin e v e ryc a se u n d e r th is s u b se c tio n sh a ll be C at egoryV I . ” Fr eeman ar gues t hat§ 4B 1. 1 m eans thata cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof V I i s re q u ir e d in o rd e r t o b e s e n te n c e d a s a c a re e r o f f e n d e r. T h e in v e rs e is a c tu a lly tru e . O n c e a d e f

e n d a n t is d e e m e d a c a re e r o f f e n d e r, h is c rim in a l h isto ryc a teg o rym u st b e se t to V I. T h e D istri ct C o u rt ’s de cisi o n to g ran t a do w n w ard d ep arture to ca tego ryV there fo re do es not el i m i nate Freem an’s s t atus as a careeroff end er because be i ng i n categoryV I i s a resu lto f, an d n o t a pre req u isi te t o , ca ree r of fe n d er status. W e the ref o re rejec t Fre em an ’s ar gum entt hathe ca nnotbe s ent ence d underhi s car eeroffe nderl evel as r equi r ed by § 4B 1. 1.8 I V. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e o rd e r o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.