Court Opinion

ID: 9906605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-04 19:00:42.760649+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:16.197659
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-3105     Document: 010110962489      Date Filed: 12/04/2023   Page: 1
                                                            FILED
                                                United States Court of Appeals
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS      Tenth Circuit

                            FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                      December 4, 2023
                          _______________________________________
                                                                     Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                         Clerk of Court
     UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

           Plaintiff - Appellee,

     v.                                                   No. 23-3105
                                                (D.C. No. 6:12-CR-10076-JWB-1)
     DEXTER DEWAYNE BAKER,                                  (D. Kan.)

           Defendant - Appellant.
                        _______________________________________

                             ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
                          _______________________________________

 Before BACHARACH, KELLY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
                _______________________________________

          This appeal involves a motion to reduce a sentence. The district court

 denied the motion, and the defendant (Mr. Dexter Baker) appeals.

          The appeal grows out a conviction to possess cocaine base with

 intent to distribute. For this conviction, the district court imposed a

 sentence of 200 months’ imprisonment.

 *
      Oral argument would not help us decide the appeal, so we have
 decided the appeal based on the record and the parties’ briefs. See Fed. R.
 App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).

       Our order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except
 under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
 But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value if
 otherwise appropriate. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
Appellate Case: 23-3105   Document: 010110962489   Date Filed: 12/04/2023   Page: 2

       Mr. Baker sought a sentence reduction, arguing that

             if he were sentenced today, the Department of Justice would
              have charged him differently and the different charges would
              have led to a lower guideline range and

             a sentence reduction was appropriate based on his rehabilitative
              efforts while in prison.

 Mr. Baker argues on appeal that the district court failed to address these

 arguments. We disagree.

       First, Mr. Baker argues that the district court failed to address his

 reliance on the Department of Justice’s current charging practices.

 According to Mr. Baker, the court conflated this argument about charging

 practices with a separate argument about proposed legislation.

       The court didn’t conflate the two arguments. The court rejected

 Mr. Baker’s argument involving the proposed legislation on the ground that

 the legislation hadn’t been enacted yet. R., Doc. 105-1, at 6–7. But the

 court recognized that Mr. Baker was separately relying on the Department

 of Justice’s policies:

       Defendant’s argument is similarly speculative that an offender
       committing a similar offense today would be charged differently
       and would face a lower guideline range because of current
       DOJ/United States Attorney policies. The court cannot speculate
       about how Defendant might have otherwise been charged, but it
       is clear from the record that the sentencing judge believed, based
       on Defendant’s record, that a sentence higher than that called for
       by the guidelines was warranted.

 Id. at 7.

                                        2
Appellate Case: 23-3105   Document: 010110962489   Date Filed: 12/04/2023   Page: 3

       Mr. Baker also complains that the district court ignored his evidence.

 That evidence involved a statement by the government that it wouldn’t

 object to a codefendant’s downward variance given the inequity in the

 guidelines for offenses involving powder cocaine and cocaine base. United

 States v. Banks, No. 13-40060-DDC-1, Sent. Tr. at 32 (D. Kan. Nov. 30,

 2021) (Doc. 1544). 1 But the district court had no need to separately address

 this evidence. The court presumably recognized, as we do, that the

 Department of Justice has sometimes supported sentence reductions based

 on the disparity between guideline ranges for crimes involving powder

 cocaine and cocaine base. But the court reasoned that it didn’t know

 whether the Department of Justice’s current charging practices would have

 lowered Mr. Baker’s guideline range. And Mr. Baker doesn’t challenge this

 reasoning.

       Second, Mr. Baker argues that the district court overlooked his claim

 involving rehabilitative efforts while in prison. But the court did address

 this claim. The court acknowledged that Mr. Baker’s “submissions indicate

 . . . commendable efforts to engage in programs designed to promote

 rehabilitation.” Id. at 9. But the court concluded that these rehabilitative

 1
       Mr. Baker cites a brief by defendant Thompson, which had in turn
 cited the sentencing transcript for defendant Banks. United States v.
 Thompson, No. 13-40060-DDC-10, Supp. to Mot. to Reduce Sent. Under 18
 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) at 7 n.17 (D. Kan. Feb. 14, 2022) (Doc. 1554).

                                        3
Appellate Case: 23-3105   Document: 010110962489   Date Filed: 12/04/2023   Page: 4

 efforts didn’t outweigh Mr. Baker’s criminal history, including theft, two

 convictions for resisting arrest, aggravated battery, multiple driving

 offenses, speeding, hit and run, multiple drug offenses, and two forgery

 offenses. Id. at 9.

       Because the district court addressed these issues and Mr. Baker

 doesn’t challenge the court’s reasoning, we affirm the denial of a sentence

 reduction. 2

                                     Entered for the Court

                                     Robert E. Bacharach
                                     Circuit Judge

 2
       Mr. Baker also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We grant
 leave because Mr. Baker cannot afford to prepay the filing fee.
                                        4