Opinion ID: 175957
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Does Amendment 706 have the effect of lowering Flemming's applicable guideline range?

Text: What initially appears to be a question with a seemingly commonsense answer, McGee, 553 F.3d at 229 i.e., whether Flemming's technical status as a career offender, which played no role in the sentence the District Court ultimately imposed, nonetheless makes him ineligible for a sentence reduction-is made far more complicated by the second requirement of § 3582(c)(2), which provides that any sentence reduction must be consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. [10] 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); see also Doe, 564 F.3d at 310. The policy statement in § 1B1.10 provides that a sentence reduction based on a retroactive amendment is not consistent with that policy statement if the amendment does not have the effect of lowering the defendant's applicable guideline range.  [11] U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) (emphasis added). Thus, under the policy statement, Flemming is not eligible for a sentence reduction if his applicable guideline range is the sentencing range calculated under the Career Offender Guidelines, as that range is not affected by Amendment 706. However, if Flemming's applicable guideline range is the Crack Cocaine Guidelines rangewhich is affected by Amendment 706he is eligible for a sentence reduction. The Government contends that the Guidelines specify that all departures, including the departure authorized under § 4A1.3, result in a sentence outside the applicable guideline range. Under the Government's theory, it is irrelevant that the District Court rejected the propriety of the career offender enhancement and sentenced Flemming within the Crack Cocaine Guidelines range, because his applicable guideline range for purposes of § 1B1.10 remained the Career Offender Guidelines range. As we explain below, the Government's view, though plausible, is far from compelled by the Guidelines. Rather, after seiz[ing] every thing from which aid can be derived to answer this question, Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453, 463, 111 S.Ct. 1919, 114 L.Ed.2d 524 (1991) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) i.e., the Guidelines' text, the Sentencing Commission's instructions for applying the Guidelines, and the Commission's applicable Commentary to the Guidelineswe conclude that the edition of the Guidelines used at Flemming's sentencing is ambiguous as to whether the applicable guideline range is his pre-§ 4A1.3 departure range (the Career Offender Guidelines range) or his post-§ 4A1.3 departure range (the Crack Cocaine Guidelines range). Under the rule of lenity, we resolve that ambiguity in Flemming's favor.