Opinion ID: 2979083
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Application of Subsection (a).

Text: (A) Eligibility.– Eligibility for consideration under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) is triggered only by an amendment listed in subsection (c) that lowers the applicable guideline range. Accordingly, a reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) and is not consistent with this policy statement if: (i) None of the amendments listed in subsection (c) is applicable to the defendant; or (ii) an amendment listed in subsection (c) is applicable to the defendant 4 The current version of § 1B1.10(a) became effective March 3, 2008, before the district court ruled on Goodloe’s § 3582 motion. See Johnson, 564 F.3d at 422. 8 No. 08-5709 United States v. Goodloe but the amendment does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range because of the operation of another guideline or statutory provision (e.g., a statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment). (bold removed). Amendment 706, the “crack amendment,” is the retroactive amendment on which Goodloe’s claim for a § 3582 reduction is based. The amendment is included in the list of amendments in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c), and “has the effect of reducing by two levels the base offense level for most cocaine-base [crack] offenses.” Johnson, 569 F.3d at 624. The key inquiry here is whether the crack amendment has the effect of lowering Goodloe’s “sentencing range” as required by § 3582(c)(2). It does not. The district court initially calculated Goodloe’s sentencing range as 108-135 months. If Goodloe’s offense level is lowered by two pursuant to the amendment, his range becomes 87-108 months. However, the “applicable range” that must be lowered by the amendment is the actual sentencing range that results from application of all the relevant guidelines and statutory minimums. See generally Johnson, 564 F.3d at 423. The ten-year statutory minimum of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) was in place at the time of Goodloe’s initial sentencing, making his relevant range 120-135 months. Because this same mandatory minimum would have controlled his resentencing as well, his relevant “range” on resentencing would have been 120 months. See id. (holding that where the mandatory minimum sentence exceeds the guidelines range, it replaces the guidelines range). Goodloe argues that the movement from 120-135 months to 120 months is a qualifying reduction in range. However, where the defendant was initially sentenced to the statutory minimum, courts have not embraced this interpretation. See id. at 421-23 (defendant “was not in fact sentenced 9 No. 08-5709 United States v. Goodloe based on a Guidelines range that was subsequently reduced” where the statutory minimum was 240 months, his initial guidelines range was 240-293 months, and his amended range would have been 188-235 months but for the statutory minimum, making the minimum of defendant’s range 240 months); see also United States v. Robinson, 353 F. App’x 941, 942 (5th Cir. 2009) (unpublished per curiam) (affirming district court’s denial without noting defendant’s initial range, based upon fact that defendant had received the statutory minimum and was still subject to it); United States v. Parker, 358 F. App’x 632, 634 (6th Cir. 2009) (unpublished per curiam) (defendant not sentenced based upon a guidelines range that has been subsequently lowered where “his sentence was instead based on the mandatory minimum imposed by 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), which remains unchanged by Amendment 706.”); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a) cmt. n.1A (reduction not authorized if a retroactive amendment “is applicable to the defendant but the amendment does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range because of the operation of . . . a statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment[].”)5