The Honor able Da vid D. Dowd, Jr., Senior United States District J udg e for the Northe rn * District of Ohio, sitting by desig nation. I nitially , the def

endant- appellant wa s sentence d to imprisonment for a ter m of life, but 1 the Sixth C ir c uit

fo un d th e e vid e nc e ins uf fi c ie nt t o s us ta in t

he c on vic tio n o n th e c ount t hat le d to the life sente nce a

nd rema nded for re- sentenc ing. T he def

endant- appellant r ece ived a ne w se nte nc e of

36 0 mo nth s. 1 NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0374n.06 No. 09-5366 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA, P laintif f-App ellee,
v. LARRY D. M OON, Defendan t-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE U NI TED STA TES D ISTRIC T C OU RT F OR THE W ESTER

N D ISTRIC T OF KENT UCKY

Before: G IBBO NS, and GRIF F IN, Circ uit Jud ges; and DOWD, District Judge. *
David D. Dowd , Jr., Distr ict Judge.
I . I NTRODUCTI ON
The a ppeal in this case challeng es the dist rict court’s ref usal to apply the provisi ons of the
re c e ntl y a do pte d A me ndme nt 7 06 of the Uni ted S tate s Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s to his pr e vio us ly enter ed sente nce of 360 months. The de fenda nt-appe llant, L arr

y Moon, contends that Amendme nt 12

706 provided a

uthority for the district c ourt to r e-se ntence him, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) , to a low e r s e nte nc e a ft e r g ivi nga tw o le ve l do wnwa

rd a dju stm e nt fo r the c a lc ulatio n o f t he of fe ns e level as the drugof abuse was c rac k coca ine. In t his case, the re is no dispute that the de fenda nt’s conduct f or which he stands convicted involved c rac k coca ine.
Howeve r, the unde rlying c ritical issue is wh et h er the def endant wa s denied a

pplication of Am e ndme nt 70 6 du e to his c are e r of fe nd e r status
. We re vie w the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de c isi on fo r a bu se of discre tion. United States v. Pe rdue , 572 F.3d 288, 290 ( 6th Cir. 2009).
II. A N A LY S IS
The S ix th Circuit has repe atedly aff irmed district courts whic h have r efuse d to gr ant re lief by virtue of Ame ndment 706 in those situations where the de fenda nt was dete rmined to be a ca ree r offe nder. See Perdue , 572 F.3d at 293. This appea l was filed pr ior to Perdue . Co ns e qu e ntl y , th e br ie f in sup po rt of the de fe nd antappellant L arr

y Moon raises many

issues that are without merit ag ainst the bac kdrop of Perdue
. No ne the le ss, the de fe nd ant- a pp e lla nt M oo n s e e ks re ve rs a l of the de nia l of

re lie f p ur su ant t o the provisions of Am endment 706 because the district court fa iled to find that he wa s a ca ree r offe nder at the time the district court denie d Amendment 706 re lief.
Be fore denying Moo n Am en d m ent 706 relief, the district cour t refe rre d the issue to the probationd e p artm e n t a

n d r e c e iv e d ane xte n s iv e r e p o rt wh ic h in c lu d e d a c o p y o f th e Pr e s e n te n ce I nves ti g a ti o nRe p o rt i nth e o r ig in a l c a s e , i. e . , c a s e nu mb e r 3 :9 5 CR

- 0 0 0 3 0
. T h a t P r e s e ntenceThe de fenda nt’s Presentenc e Report lists his date of birth as Apr il 12, 1959, so at the 2 time of his convictions, as above -desc ribed, the de fenda nt was over

18 y ear s of ag e. 3 I nvestig ation Report listed a 1985 convic tion for traf ficking in a

controlled substanc e desc ribed a s
on e-ha lf g ra

m of c oc a ine ; a

19 86 c on vic tio n f

or tr a ff ic kin g un de r e ig ht g ra

ms, lis te d a s a mis de me ano r; and

a 19 90 c on vic tio n f

or ill e g a l po sse ssi on

of a c on tr oll e d s ub sta

nc e , de sc ri be d in the re port as coc aine. 2
Se c tio n 4 B 1. 1 o f t

he Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s d e sc ri be s a c are e r o ff

e nd e r a s:
A d e fe nd ant i s a

c are e r o ff

e nd e r i f ( 1) the de fe nd ant w a s a t le a st e ig hte e n y e ars old at the time the defenda

nt committed the i nstant offe nse of c onviction; (2) the instant offe nse of c onviction is a felony that is either a c rim e o f violence or a contr olled substance of

fense ; and (3) the defe ndant has at least two prior fe lony convictions of either a crime of violence or

a contr olled substance of fense
. The Court now addresses the argument advanc ed on appea l befor e thi s court to the e ffe ct that the district court in deny

ing Moon’ s application for relief under A mendment 706 fa iled to find that he wa s a ca

ree r off ender
. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

de nie d M oo n’ s mo tio n f or re du c tio n o f h is s e nte nc e pu rsu ant t o Amendment 706 on Mar ch 26, 2009.
I ts o rd e r d e nyingre lie f s tate d in pa rt a s f oll ow s: The probation office pr epar ed a me morandum of r eca lculation whi ch included a rec ommendation that no reduc tion applied due to the def endant’ s status as a ca

ree r of fe nd e r u nd e r a pp lic a tio n o f S e c tio n 4B 1. 1 of the Gu ide lin e s. I n r e sp on se , d e fe ns e c ouns e l f ile d 2 ob je c tio ns and

re qu e sts a re -s e nte nc ing he ari ng . T he Go ve rnme nt d id not object to the probation office’ s rec ommendation.4

First, d e f e n s e c o u n s e l a s s e rts th e dr u g qu an ti ty

a tt r ib u ta b le to th e d e f

e n d an t a t se nte nc ing , a

nd lik e wi se c on ta ine d in

the me mor and

um o f r e c a lc ulatio n, is i nc or re c t. Mr. Ear hart states the 96 g rams of c rac k coca ine associated with Count 4, whic h was vacated by

the 6th Circuit Court of Appea ls, shou l d b e removed fr om the drug quantity total, thus leaving the def endant a ccountab l e fo r a total of 89.43 g rams of c ra c k c oc a ine
. De fe ns e c ouns e l argue s th is r e du c tio n in dr ugqu anti ty

wo uld c re a te a lower g uideline ra

ng e for imprisonment. However , this argument ignor es the fa ct that Mr . M oo n wa s se nte nc e d a s a c are e r of fe nd e r. Th e c are e r o ff

e nd e r e nh anc e me nt, no t th e dr ugqu anti ty , c on tr ols the ult imate g uid e lin e ra ng e fo r imp ri so nme nt i n th is case . I n o th e r w o r d s , e v e n th o u g h th e c r a c k c o c a in e a me n dme n t r e d uces the defe ndant’s base offe nse level for his dr ug convictions, it doe s not ha ve the ef fec t of l o we ri n g h i s u l t i m at e gui d el i n e ra n ge fo r i mp ri s o n m en t b ec au s e t h e s en t en ci n g ra n ge is controlled by

Mr. Moon’s status as a c are er of fende r under operation of Section 4B 1. 1 o f t

he Gu ide lin e s. F ur

the r, the 6th

Cir c uit Cou rt of Ap pe a l’ s d e c isi on

to vacate t h e conviction as to Count 4 has no bea ring on Mr. Moon’s qualification as a c are e r o ff e nd e r. Th e re fo re , a

re du c tio n in

se nte nc e is n ot a

uth or ize d und e r 1 8 U SC 3582(c) (2). Additionally , at t he re sentenc ing hear ing neither party objected to the car eer offe nder enhanc ement outlined in the pr esente nce r eport. (E mphasis added)
. Def ense c ounsel’s sec ond objection re lates to the def end an t ’s status as a c are er offe nder. The defe ndant maintains at the re - sentenc in g t h er e was a not a fac tual finding that he wa s a ca ree r off en d er. Absent a spec ific finding , the def endant objects to being s en t en ce d as a c are er of fende r. Mr. Ea

rhar t then encour ag es the Court to util ize g uid e lin e c a lc ulatio ns a bs e nt t he c are e r o ff

e nd e r e nh anc e me nt, to include a r eduction under the cr ack c ocaine amendments. To the contrar y , as evidenc ed in the Statement of Rea sons for the r e-se ntencingh ea ri ng , the Court adopted the fac tual finding s and g uideline application contained in the pre sentenc e repor t except, the Court found that Mr. Moon did not qualify for a n acc eptanc e of responsibility

r e d u c ti o n a n d d e te r mi n e d that the maxim um guide line fine amount was $12,000,000. As such, the Court adopte d the ca ree r offe nder e nhance ment provided in t he pr e se nte nc e re po rt ’s g uid e lin e c omp utatio ns . A g a in, ne ith e r p art y ob je c te d to the c are e r o ff

e nd e r e nh anc e me nt c on ta ine d in the p re se nte nc e re po rt . T his enhanc ement g ener ated the total a djusted offe nse leve l of 37 (and c riminal hi s t ory VI ) which in turn is the basis for the g uideline rang e of imprisonm ent of 360 months to l if e . A s su c h, the Court

fi nd s d e fe ns e c ouns e l’ s se c on d o bje c tio n w ith ou t me ri t.
The tra nscript of t h e s entenc ing he aringconducte d on September 24, 1999 f ollowing the
re mand fr om the Sixth Cir c uit inc lud e s a sta te me nt by Mo on ’s c ouns e l, Sco tt Cox, with re sp e c t to the se nte nc ingc on sid e ratio ns wh ic h in c lud e d th e fo llo wi ngstate me nt:5

“... and two whether h e warra nts a downwa

rd depa rture f or diminished mental capa city . I think those are the only two issues, and I

do think Mr. Moon is a car eer offe nder ba sed on the fa ct that this is a narc otics case that he stands convic ted.”
I I I . CONCL USI ON
The e ntire re cord in this c ase is r eplete w ith determinations that Moon is a car eer offe nder. Hi s Pr e se nte nc e Re po rt

su pp or ts that pr op os iti on . H is c ouns e l at r e -s e nte nc ingc on c e de d th a t po int
. Th e Pr e se nte nc e Re po rt

de c lare s Mo on

to b e a c are e r off

end e r a nd the dis tr ic t c ourt

so fo un d in denying Moon’ s motion for an adjustment of the of fense level base d on Amendment 706. The judg ment of the district cour t is AFF I RMED.