Opinion ID: 4552835
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bullock’s claim

Text: On appeal, Bullock argues that he is eligible for relief under § 404 of the First Step Act because he stipulated to a drug quantity of 25 grams in his plea agreement, which, under the Fair Sentencing Act, would now trigger a lower statutory penalty range. In response, the government concedes that Bullock was convicted of a “covered offense” under § 404 of the First Step Act. Nonetheless, the government argues that the district court lacked authority to reduce Bullock’s 7 Case: 20-10469 Date Filed: 08/03/2020 Page: 8 of 11 sentence because, at sentencing, Bullock admitted that his offense involved 166.75 grams of crack cocaine, and, therefore, his statutory penalty range did not change. 3 As explained below, Jones has now rejected this type of claim. For starters, in Jones, this Court held that the district court imposed a sentence for a “covered offense” if the defendant’s crack-cocaine offense triggered the enhanced penalties in § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) or (B)(iii). Jones, 962 F.3d at 130001. To determine whether the defendant’s offense triggered those enhanced penalties and is a “covered offense,” district courts “must consult the record, including the [defendant’s] charging documents, the jury verdict or guilty plea, the sentencing record, and the final judgment.” Id. The Jones Court rejected the government’s argument that, when conducting this inquiry, the district court should consider the actual quantity of crack cocaine involved in the defendant’s violation. Id. at 1301. Rather, the district court should consider only whether the quantity of crack cocaine satisfied the specific drug quantity elements in § 841—in other words, whether his offense involved 50 grams or more of crack cocaine, therefore triggering the penalties in § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii), or between 5 and 50 grams, therefore triggering the penalties in § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii). Id. Accordingly, under Jones, a district court may not rely on “its earlier [drug-quantity] findings . . . that 3 This Court reviews de novo whether a district court had the authority to modify a term of imprisonment. Jones, 962 F.3d at 1296. 8 Case: 20-10469 Date Filed: 08/03/2020 Page: 9 of 11 were unrelated to the [defendant’s] statutory penalty to conclude that he did not commit a covered offense.” Id. at 1301-02. Next, the Jones Court explained that “a [defendant’s] satisfaction of the ‘covered offense’ requirement does not necessarily mean that a district court can reduce his sentence.” Id. at 1303. Specifically, the “as if” qualifier in § 404(b) of the First Step Act, which states that any reduction must be “as if sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act . . . were in effect at the time the covered offense was committed,” imposes two limitations on the district court’s authority. Id. (quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original); see First Step Act § 404(b). First, the district court cannot reduce a sentence where the defendant “received the lowest statutory penalty that also would be available to him under the Fair Sentencing Act.” Jones, 962 F.3d at 1303. “Second, in determining what a [defendant’s] statutory penalty would be under the Fair Sentencing Act, the district court is bound by a previous finding of drug quantity that could have been used to determine the [defendant’s] statutory penalty at the time of sentencing.” Id. Here, as the government concedes, Bullock was sentenced for a “covered offense” under Section 404(b) of the First Step Act. In 2009, Bullock was charged with conspiring to possess with intent to distribute five grams or more of crack cocaine and an unspecified amount of powder cocaine. In his plea agreement, Bullock stipulated that the amount of crack cocaine involved in the offense was 25 9 Case: 20-10469 Date Filed: 08/03/2020 Page: 10 of 11 grams. Contrary to the government’s argument, the quantity of drugs attributed to Bullock for sentencing purposes (166.75 grams) is not relevant to whether he was eligible for a reduction under the First Step Act. See id. at 1301-02 (stating that a district court may not rely on “its earlier [drug-quantity] findings . . . that were unrelated to the [defendant’s] statutory penalty to conclude that he did not commit a covered offense.”). Rather, the relevant quantity for eligibility purposes is the 25 grams that Bullock stipulated to in his plea agreement because that amount triggered the enhanced statutory penalties in § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii). Id. Thus, because Bullock was subject to the enhanced statutory penalties in § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii), which were modified by the Fair Sentencing Act, Bullock’s offense qualifies as a “covered offense.” See id. at 1301. As a result, the district court had the authority to reduce Bullock’s sentence “as if” the Fair Sentencing Act was in effect at the time of his offense. Under the Fair Sentencing Act, Bullock’s offense would now result in no mandatory minimum prison term (as opposed to 10 years) and a statutory maximum penalty of 30 years (as opposed to life). Compare 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii) (2006), with 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) (2010). The 30-year statutory maximum penalty, in turn, would lower Bullock’s offense level to 34 under the career offender provision and 10 Case: 20-10469 Date Filed: 08/03/2020 Page: 11 of 11 would result in a lower advisory guidelines range of 188 to 235 months.4 See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b). Accordingly, the district court erred in finding Bullock ineligible for First Step Act relief. However, eligibility does not mean entitlement. Although a district court may have the authority to reduce a sentence under § 404 of the First Step Act, it is not required to do so. Jones, 962 F.3d at 1304. A district court has “wide latitude to determine whether and how to exercise [its] discretion,” and it may consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and a previous drug-quantity finding made for the purposes of relevant conduct. Id. at 1301, 1304. Accordingly, we vacate the order denying Bullock’s First Step Act motion and remand for further proceedings to allow the district court to exercise its discretion as to Bullock’s request to reduce his sentence under the First Step Act. VACATED and REMANDED. 4 This guidelines range is based on an offense level of 31 after accounting for Bullock’s 3-level reduction for accepting responsibility. 11