2005 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 6-21-2005 

# U SA v . B e n ant i 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 . 05-1965

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_2005

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 2005 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 . Be n ant i " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 979. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/979B PS-253 NOT 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 . 05- 1965

________________ 

### UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA

v. MICH AE L B EN AN TI, Appe l l ant

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m . N o. 92- C R - 00314) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le E d w in M . K o sik

_______________________________________ S u b m itt e d F o r P o ss ib le D ism iss a l d u e to a Ju risd ictio n a l D e f e c t an d f o r P o ss ib le S u m m a ry A c tio n U n d e r T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 J une 3, 2005 B efor e: R E N D E L L , FI SH E R and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: J une 21, 2005 )

_______________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM A ppel l antM i chae l B enant i appea l s fr om an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct2

Co u r tf o rt h e M i d d l e Di s t r i c to f P e n n s y l v a n i a , d e n y i n g h i s mo t i o n u n d e r1 8 U. S . C. § 3582( c) forr educt i on of s ent ence . A s thi s appea l pr es ent s no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on of law , w e w il l aff

irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er. I n D ece m ber1992, appel l antM i chae l B enant i w as convi ct ed bya j uryof s even count s outof an e i ghtcounti ndi ctm entfor , i nt eral i a, cons pi r acyt o comm i ta bank r obberyand s ol i ci t at i on, and w as s ent ence d t o 210 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent . I n D ece m ber 1994, thi s C our taff

i r m ed the j udgm ent . See U ni t ed St at es v. B enant i , 46 F. 3d 1118 ( 3d C ir. 1 9 9 4 ). F o llo w in g u n su c c e ss f u l atte m p ts in 1 9 9 7 a n d 2 0 0 3 to f ile m o tio n s p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 , B e n a n ti file d th e in sta n t m o tio n f o r re d u c tio n o f

se n ten c e . B e n a n ti cl ai m ed thathi s s ent ence s houl d be r educe d byappl i cat i on of A m endment591 of the U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed r el i ef. B enant i fi l ed a m ot i on forr econs i der at i on, w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed. B enant i appea l ed. I . Juri s di ct i on T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s i ni t i al or derdeny i ng r el i ef w as ent er ed Fr i day , February11, 2005. A s s ever al of ours i s t ercourt s have he l d, a § 3582( c) ( 2) m ot i on i s cons i der ed a cont i nuat i on of the cr i m i nal pr ocee di ngs agai ns ta def endant ; thus , the t en- dayper i od for fi l i ng a not i ce of

appea l appl i es . See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. E s pi nos a- T al amant es , 319 F . 3 d 1 2 4 5 , 1 2 4 6 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ); U n it ed S tat es v . A rran g o , 2 9 1 F . 3 d 1 7 0 , 1 7 1 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ); F e d . R . A p p . P . 4 (b )( 1 )( A ). T h e te n -d a yp e ri o d is m a n d a to ry a n d ju ri s d ic tio n a l. U ni t ed St at es v. R obi ns on, 361 U . S. 220, 224 ( 1960) ; U ni t ed St at es v. G r ana, 864 F. 2d3

3 1 2 , 3 1 4 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 9 ). B e n a n ti f ile d a n o tic e o f

a p p e a l d a te d M a rc h 2 1 , 2 0 0 5 . H o w e v e r , B e n a n t i f

i l e d a m o t i o n f

o rr e c o n s i d e r a t i o n . I f

h i s m o t i o n w a s t i m e l y, then the t i m e forappea l w as ext ended unt i l 10 day s aft erthe or derdeny i ng the r econs i der at i on m ot i on w as ent er ed. A m ot i on forr econs i der at i on of an or deraff ect i ng the fi nal j udgm enti n a cr i m i nal cas e i s t i m el yfi l ed i f m ade w i t hi n t he per i od al l ot t ed for the n o ti cing o f a n ap p ea l; i. e., w ith in 1 0 d ay s. U n it ed S tat es v . C o o k , 6 7 0 F . 2 d 4 6 , 4 8 (5 th C i r . 1982) . B enant i ’ s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on w as notfi l ed w i t hi n 10 day s of the F eb rua ry1 1 o rde r.

th N e v e rth e les s, in U n ited S tate s v . G ra n a , 8 6 4 F .2 d 3 1 2 , 3 1 6 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 9 ), th is C our thel d t hat“i n comput i ng t he t i m el i nes s of pr o s e pr i s oner s ’ appea l s , anypr i s on del ay i n tr ans m i t t i ng t o t he pr i s onert he not i ce of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fi nal or ders hal l be excl uded fr om t he comput at i on of an a ppel l ant ’ s t i m e fort aki ng an appe al . ” A ccor di ng t o B enant i ’ s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on, he di d notr ece i ve the February11, 2005 or der unt i l M ar ch 1, 2005, beca us e pr i s on offi ci al s del ay ed i n forw ar di ng the or dert o t he p r o p e rp r i s o n . Ap p l y i n g Gr a n a t o e x c l u d e p r i s o n d e l a yf r o m th e c o mp u t a t i o n o f th e t i me to f ile h is m o tio n f

o r r e c o n s id e ra tio n , th e m o tio n f o r r e c o n s id e ra tio n w a s tim e ly. B enant i ’ s not i ce of

appea l w as fi l ed w i t hi n 10 day s of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s M ar ch 15, 2 0 0 5 o rd e r d e n y in g h is m o tio n f o r r e c o n s id e ra tio n , a n d is th u s a ls o tim e ly. II. M er it s W e n e x t co n sid e r w h e th e r th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlyd e n ied B e n a n ti’s m o tio n to1 I n U ni t ed St at es v. D i az, 245 F. 3d 294, 301 ( 3d C i r . 2001) , w e hel d t hatA m endment 1 2 591 i s notr etr oact i vel yappl i cabl e t o a ca s e pendi ng on di r ectappea l . D i az i s not 3 a p p lica b le h e re , as B e n a n ti’s c a se in v o lv e s a m o tio n f o r re d u c tio n o f

se n ten c e p u rsu a n t to 4 the amendm ent , w hi ch the G ui del i nes s peci fi cal l yauthor i ze. 4 r educe hi s s ent ence . I n t hi s cont ext , w e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overl egal ques t i ons conce rni ng t he pr operi nt erpr et at i on of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . See U ni t ed St at es v. T h o m p so n , 7 0 F . 3 d 2 7 9 , 2 8 0 -81 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). S e c tio n 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) p ro v id e s in re lev a n t p a rt: ( c) T he courtm aynotm odi fya t erm of i m pr i s onm entonce i thas been i m pos ed exce ptt hat– ( 2) i n t he ca s e of a defe ndantw ho has been s ent ence d t o a t erm of i m pr i s onm ent bas ed on a s ent enci ng r ange thathas s ubs equent l ybeen l ow er ed bythe Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on . . . t he courtm ayr educe the t erm of i m pr i s onm ent , aft ercons i der i ng the fa ct or s s etfor t h i n s ect i on 3553( a) t o t he ext entthattheyar e appl i cabl e, i f 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. 18 U . S. C . § 3582( c) ( 2) . A s ent enci ng gui del i ne thathas been a m ended a ft era def endant has been s ent ence d m aybe appl i ed r etr oact i vel yi n a § 3582 pr ocee di ng i f i ti s gi ven r etr oact i ve ef

fec tunder§ 1B 1. 10 of the U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . T hom ps on, 70 F. 3d 281. A m endment591 i s gi ven r etr oact i ve ef fec ti n § 1B 1. 10; thus , a def endant m a yse e k re lief

p u rsu a n t to th a t am e n d m e n t. 1 W e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our t , how ever , thatB enant i ’ s s ent ence i s notaff ect ed byA m endment591. A m endment591 t o t he U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes change d U . S. S. G . §§ 1B 1. 1 and 1B 1. 2, the A ppl i cat i on N ot e t o § 1B 1. 2, and the1 W e furt herhol d t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ydeni ed B enant i ’ s m ot i on for 2 2 r econs i der at i on. 5 I ntr oduct i on t o t he St atut or yI ndex ( A ppendi x A ) . O ne r es ul tof thes e cha nges i s thatt he St atut oryI ndex ( A ppendi x A ) no l ongerm er el yai ds the s ent enci ng courti n fi ndi ng the m o st a p p lica b le g u id e lin e a m o n g se v e ra l p o ss ib ili ties b u t in ste a d (w ith c e rta in exce pt i ons ) concl us i vel ypoi nt s t he courtt o t he one gui del i ne appl i cabl e i n a gi ven ca s e:

“ th e se n ten c in g c o u rt m ustappl yt he off ens e gui del i ne r efe r ence d i n t he St atut oryI ndex f o r th e sta tu te o f

c o n v ictio n .” D iaz , 2 4 5 F .3 d a t 3 0 2 . A s th e D istric t C o u rt e x p lain e d in d e n y in g B e n a n ti’s m o tio n , the c o u rt’s s e lec tio n o f th e a p p lica b le g u id e lin e s p ro v isio n s in hi s cas e di d i n fac tcompl yw i t h t he A m endmentbeca us e i t s s el ect i on tr acke d t he s t atut es B e n a n ti v io la te d . F o r th e f o rgo ing rea so n s, w e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er. 2