NO T REC OM ME ND ED F ORF ULL -TEXT PUB LIC ATION Fi le Name: 10a041 7n.06 No. 09- 5393 UN ITED STATES C OU RT O F APPEA LS FO R THE S IX TH C IR CU IT
UN ITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Pl ain ti ff-A ppel lee , v. SEAN SN IPES , Defendant -A ppel lan t. / On ap peal from t he Un ited St ates District C ourt for t he East ern District of Tennessee

BEF OR E: MA RTIN , RYAN , and KETH LED GE, Ci rc uitJu dg es. RY AN, Circuit Judge. T he d efe n d a n t , S e a n S n ip es, is app ealing the district
cour t’ s d eni al of a moti on to reduce se ntenc e. Fo r th e r e asons bel ow , w e w il l aff ir m the jud g ment of the dis tr ic t c our t. I. On M ay 19, 2003, Sni pes ple d g uil ty to Cou nt 1 of an ind ic tment charg ing hi m w it h
cons p i r a c y t o d i s t r i b u t e a n d p o s s e s s i o n w i t h t h e i n t e n t t o d i s t r i b u t e 5 0 g r a ms o r mo re of
coc ain e bas e, or

crack co cai ne, i n v iol ati on of 21 U. S.C . §§ 841( a) (1 ) and 846

. Us ing the 2002 S entenc ing Gui del ine s, the P ro bati on Off ice i ss ued a Present ence Inv est ig ati on Repo rt in w hich it det ermin ed th at Sn ipes ha d a ba se of fense lev el of

34, be cause his off ense in v o l v e d a t l e a s t 1 5 0 g r a ms b u t l e s s t h a n 5 0 0 g r a ms o f c r a c k c o c a i n e . The Probati on Office als o recommended thatthe off ense lev el be reduce d by three l ev els due to S nip es’ s a cc eptanc e of r espon si bil ity .(N o. 09 -5 393) -2
-

Snip es objected to the Presen ten ce Investiga t io n R epo rt, arguing tha t it should inc lud e an addi ti onal reduct ion i n the offense lev el becau se of Snipe s’ s mi nor role i n the consp iracy . Th e district court con duct ed a n evidentia ry hea ring, and ruled th at Sn ipes did hav e a mi nor

role i n the dr ug co nspi ra cy and that he w as enti tl ed to the tw o- lev el re duct ion

. At the close of

the he aring, the district court imp osed a sente nce o f 152 mon ths’ confine ment, based on a g uid eli ne ra ng e of 15 1 to 188 months

. This cor re spond ed w it h a C ri minal Hist o ryC ateg or y of VI a nd a total offense lev el of 29 ( base off ense lev el 34 redu ced b y

three levels fo r acce pta nce of resp onsib ility

a nd by tw o levels for m inor role). After the s entenc ing , b u t b e f o re the dis tr ic t c our t had i ss ued a w ri tten jud g ment, Sni pes filed a moti on for re cons ide ra ti on arg uin g that there w as an er ro r in the g uid eli ne cal cul ati on beca u se t h e offense lev el shoul d hav e been cappe d at lev el 30 pursuantto U. S.S. G. § 2D 1.1( a) (3 ) due t o Sni pes’ s mi nor role

. The cour

t c onduc ted a h e a ring and g ra nted Sni pes’ s mot ion for re cons ide ra ti on. The cour t then impos ed a sent ence of 137 months , bas ed on a g uid e li ne rang e of 110 t o 137 months

. This co rrespon ded w it h a Cr imi nal H is tor

y Categ or y of VI and a total of

fense lev el of 25 ( off ense lev el 34 c apped a t lev el 30, t hen reduce d by three lev els for ac cept ance of res ponsi bil ity and by tw o l ev els for minor role ). Fol low ing Snipes ’s sentenc ing , the Sent enci ng C ommis si on enac ted A mendment 706 (fu rther am end ed by Am end me nt 71 1), w hich redu ced th e ba se of fense lev el for mo st
crack co cai ne offenses. Sni pes filed a pro s e moti on for app o intment of c ounse l. The dis tr ic t c our

t g ra nted the motion and ordered the g ov er nment t o address the eff ectof the
new crack co cai ne amendmenton S nip es’ s s entenc e.(N o. 09 -5 393) -3
-

On M ar ch 20, 2 009, after the p arti es submi tted br iefs on the ef fect of Amendment 706, the d is tr ic t c our

t den ied Sni pes’ s mot ion for a se ntenc e reduct ion , r uli ng thati t l ack ed the a uthor ity

to re duce Sni pes’ s s entenc e. Sni pes filed a t imel y appeal to thi s c our

t. II. “Ad is t rict court’s denia l of a mo tion to mod if

y a sente nce u nde r 18 U.S.C. § 3582( c) (2 ) is rev iew ed unde r the a buse- of-di sc re ti on s tandard.” U nit ed St ates v . Pe rd ue, 57 2 F

. 3 d 2 8 8 , 2 9 0 ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 9 ) , c e rt

. d e n i e d , 1 3 0 S

. C t

. 1 5 3 7 ( 2 0 1 0)

. “‘ Abus e of dis creti on i s d efined as a defini te and f ir m conv ic ti on that the tri al cour t committ ed a cl ear er ro r of judg ment. A dis tr ic t cour t abuse s it s dis creti on w hen it re li es on c lea rl y er ro neous f indings of

fact, o r when it im prop erly a pplies the la w

or uses an e rroneo us legal stand ard.’” B e t t s v. Co s t c o W h o le s a le Co rp . , 5 5 8 F. 3 d 4 6 1 , 4 6 7 (6 t h C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ) ( qu o t in g T o m p k in v. Phi li p M or ri s U SA, Inc ., 362 F .3d 8 82, 8 91 ( 6th C ir . 200 4) ). III . Sni pes arg ues that the d is tr ic t c our t abuse d it s dis creti on w hen it ru led thati t l ack ed the a uthor ity

under 18 U .S.C . § 3582( c) (2 ) and U.S .S.G . § 1B1.10 to re duce his se ntenc e. W e di sag re e. A fede ral court can mod if y a de fend ant ’s sente nce o nly if it is aut horized to do so by st atute

. Uni ted S tates v . R oss , 245 F .3d 5 77, 5 86 ( 6th C ir . 200 1)

. Und er the re lev ant sta tute, i f a def endant “h as been s entenc ed to a t er m of impr is onment b ased on a sent enci ng rang e that h a s s ubseq uentl y been low er ed by

the Senten ci ng C ommis si on,”
a cou rt c a n r e d u ce the sente nce “if such a redu ction is consiste nt w ith ap plicable policy sta tements i ss ued by

the Senten ci ng C ommis si on.” 18 U. S.C . § 3582( c) (2 ).(N o. 09 -5 393) -4
-

Se c ti on 1 B1 .1 0 of t he S en te nc i ng G ui de l i ne s s et s o utt he a pp l i c ab l e policy sta tement w hen c onsi der ing a reduct ion i n s entenc e as a resul t of an a mendment t o the Senten ci n g Guidel ine s: “ A reduct ion i n the defendant’ s t er m of impr is onment i s n ot
cons is tent w it h thi s p oli cy st atement and t herefore is n ot au thor iz ed unde r 18 U .S.C . § 3582( c) (2 ) if .

. . (B) an a mendment l is ted i n s ubsec ti on [1 B1.10] (c ) does not h av e the eff ectof low er ing the defendant’ s a ppl ic abl e gu id e lin e rang e.” U .S.S .G. § 1B 1.10( a) (2 ) (2 008)

. Here, Am end me nt 70 6 is one o f the am end me n t s listed in subse ction (c) and it
re duces the base off ense lev el of most c ra ck co cai ne offenses b y t wo le vels. Se e U. S

. S

. G

. § 1 B 1

. 1 0 (c ) (2 0 0 8 ). I n S n ip e s ’s c a s e , h o we ve r, A m e n d m e n t 7 0 6 d o e s n o th a ve the e ff ectof low er ing Sni pes’ s a ppl ic abl e g uid eli ne rang e. W hen t he di str ic t c our

t c alc ula ted S nip es’ s g uid eli ne ra n ge w it hout the b enefit of Amendment 706, Sni pes’ s i nit ial bas e offense lev el w as 34. The di strictco urt t hen red u ced th is lev el to 30 due to Snip es’s mino r role pu rsuan t to U.S.S .G. § 2D1 .1(a)(3). W hen the guideline range is recalcu lated w ith the ben ef it o f Ame ndm ent706 , Snipe s’s initial base of

fense lev el is 32, bu t w ith the § 2D1.1 (a)(3) redu ctio n , t h is lev el is again
re duced to 30. Con seq uentl y , Snipes ’s base of fense lev el cal cul ated w it h and w it hout the benefit of Amendment 706 is lev el 30. Und er both cal cul ati ons, Sni pes’ s total offense lev el is 25, after tak ing i n to a cc o u n t t he addi ti onal three- lev el re duct ion for a cc eptanc e of respo nsibility and the two-lev el reduct ion for mino r ro le

. T here fore, Sn ipes’s ap plicable g uid eli ne rang e us ing Amendment7 0 6 i s identi cal to the o ri g ina l g uid eli ne rang e under
w hic h he w as sent enced

. Amendment 706 “ does not h av e the effectof low er ing the(N o. 09 -5 393) -5
-

defendant’ s a ppl ic abl e gui del ine rang e.” U. S.S. G. § 1B1. 10( a) (2 ) (2 008)

. Acc ordin g ly , t he distri c t c o u rt c o rrectly

foun d tha t it did nothave the au tho rity to redu ce the sente nce becau se Sni pes has not “ been s entenc ed to a t er m of impr is o n m e nt ba sed on a sent enci ng rang e th a t has subs eq uentl y been low er ed by

the Senten ci ng C ommis si on.” 18 U .S.C . § 3582( c) (2 ). IV. There w as no abus e of di sc re ti on, a nd w e A FFIRM the j udg ment of the dis tr ic t c our t.