Opinion ID: 55118
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 2005 Guidelines Manual

Text: “The Court shall use the Guidelines Manual in effect on the date that the defendant is sentenced.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(a). If the use of the Guidelines Manual in effect on the date the defendant is sentenced violates the Ex Post Facto Clause, the court must use the Guidelines Manual in effect on the date the defendant committed the offense of conviction. U.S.S.G. § 1B.1.11(b)(1). The Ex Post Facto Clause protects people against being punished for conduct that was not 7 criminal when they engaged in it, being punished more severely than their crime was punishable for when committed, or being deprived of defenses then available. United States v. De La Mata, 266 F.3d 1275, 1286 (11th Cir. 2001). The defendant does not get the benefit of using multiple Guidelines Manuals; rather, one manual is used to sentence the defendant for all crimes. United States v. Bailey, 123 F.3d 1381, 1403-04 (11th Cir. 1997). In a conspiracy, this rule operates to put a defendant on notice that he will be sentenced under the Guidelines in effect at the time of the last acts of the conspiracy. Id. at 1405. The 2000 Guidelines Manual provided an offense level of 23 for money laundering while the 2001-2005 Guidelines Manuals provided an offense level of 38 for the same offense. See U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(a) (2000); § 2S1.1(a) (2001-2005); 2D1.1(c)(1) (2001-2005).1 Therefore, if the district court incorrectly used the 2005 Guidelines Manual, it may have violated Mathis’s rights under the Ex Post Facto Clause.2 1 The base offense level for money laundering offenses is the level of the underlying offense from which the funds were derived, which in this case is the offense level for drug offenses specified in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1). See U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(a)(1). 2 We say “may have” here as opposed to “violated” because, post-Booker, it is not clear that using one Guidelines Manual over another violates the Ex Post Facto Clause, even when using different Guidelines Manuals would produce divergent sentences. Booker made the Sentencing Guidelines advisory as opposed to mandatory. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Because the Guidelines are advisory, it is difficult to say the Guidelines, rather than the district court exercising discretion, are the source of the harsher punishment when the district court consults, in an advisory manner, the current version of the Guidelines. See generally United States v. Demaree, 459 F.3d 791, 795 (7th Cir. 2006) (noting “a rule that a guidelines change cannot be applied retroactively if it would be adverse to the 8 To prevail on this claim, Mathis must demonstrate that the district court clearly erred when it found the conspiracy continued past November 1, 2001, the effective date of the 2001 Guidelines Manual. Mathis fails to make this showing. He argues he withdrew from the conspiracy in July 2001, when he surrendered to law enforcement. While it is true he surrendered, there were sufficient facts showing that Mathis continued to launder money past November 1, 2001. Specifically, Mathis purchased two automobiles, one of which the jury convicted Mathis of purchasing with proceeds from drug sales. Thus, we conclude the district court did not err in using the 2005 Guidelines Manual.