Opinion ID: 1433951
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Request for a Remand With Respect to Sentencing for Crack

Text: Lastly, in his postargument supplemental brief, Carr argues that this Court should remand to the district court for resentencing in light of (a) Kimbrough' s holding that a sentencing court has discretion to deviate from the harsh sentences for defendants convicted of trafficking in crack as recommended in the version of the Guidelines applicable to Carr, and (b) amendments to the crack-related guidelines, adopted subsequent to his resentencing. We disagree. Carr's contention that he should be resentenced because of the harshness of the crack-related guidelines that were applied to him is subject to plain-error analysis because he made no challenge to those guidelines on harshness grounds in the district court. See, e.g., United States v. Regalado, 518 F.3d 143, 147 (2d Cir.2008). To receive relief under plain-error analysis, `a defendant must show (1) error, (2) that is plain at the time of appellate review, and (3) that affects substantial rights. Where these conditions are met, we have the discretion to notice a forfeited error if (4) it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.' Id. (quoting United States v. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289, 316 (2d Cir. 2007), cert, denied, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 252, 172 L.Ed.2d 190 (2008)). Carr cannot meet this test, for if there was error it did not affect his substantial rights. He was sentenced to two concurrent terms of 35 years' imprisonment on the RICO counts. His sentences on the narcotics counts were 20 years, to be served concurrently with the sentences on the RICO counts. There is no indication in the record that the district court believed these 20-year sentences were inappropriate for Carr's admitted dealing in narcotics throughout virtually his entire adult life. Rather, at the sentencing hearing, the district court noted that [t]here are other counts involving narcotics and the weapons but the crucial thing here for this sentence is what the sentence will be on the two RICO counts. . . . (S.Tr. 17.) We cannot see that Kimbrough warrants a remand with respect to Carr's sentence on the narcotics counts. As to Carr's contention that he should be resentenced anew in light of amendments to the Guidelines adopted after his resentencing on the Crosby remand, that contention is not properly before us. Defendants who seek relief based on Guidelines amendments should move for modification of their sentences pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) in the district courts. United States v. Regalado, 518 F.3d at 151.