Court Opinion

ID: 9384872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-05 15:00:38.552433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:57.016126
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-12831    Document: 48-1      Date Filed: 04/05/2023   Page: 1 of 13

                                                 [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                    In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                 No. 21-12831
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                       Plaintiff-Appellee,
        versus
        VINCENT KEITH RAINES,

                                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 1:04-cr-00028-AW-GRJ-1
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-12831      Document: 48-1     Date Filed: 04/05/2023     Page: 2 of 13

        2                      Opinion of the Court                21-12831

        Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
               Vincent Raines, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals
        the district court’s orders denying two of his motions. Raines ar-
        gues on appeal that the district court erred when it denied his mo-
        tion seeking a reduction in his sentence based on § 404(b) of the
        First Step Act and his motion seeking compassionate release. For
        the reasons set forth below, we vacate the district order denying
        Raines’s motion seeking a reduction based on § 404(b) of the First
        Step Act and remand for further proceedings, and we dismiss the
        portion of appeal challenging the district court’s denial of Raines’s
        motion seeking compassionate release.
                                         I.
               In 2005, Raines pled guilty to one count of conspiring to dis-
        tribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a
        mixture and substance containing crack cocaine. See 21 U.S.C.
        § 841(a)(1). Because of the drug quantity and Raines’s prior felony
        convictions, he faced a mandatory life sentence. Before sentencing,
        the government filed a motion to permit the court to impose a sen-
        tence below the mandatory life sentence.
               Before the sentencing hearing, a probation officer prepared
        a presentence investigation report (“PSR”). The PSR found that
        Raines qualified as a career offender under the Sentencing Guide-
        lines and calculated Raines’s guidelines range as 262 to 327 months’
USCA11 Case: 21-12831      Document: 48-1      Date Filed: 04/05/2023      Page: 3 of 13

        21-12831                Opinion of the Court                         3

        imprisonment. The district court adopted the PSR’s calculations
        and sentenced Raines to 294 months’ imprisonment.
               After Raines began to serve his sentence, Congress passed
        the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 to address disparities in sentences
        between offenses involving crack cocaine and those involving pow-
        der cocaine. See Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372 (2010); see also
        Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 97–100 (2007) (providing
        background on disparity). The Fair Sentencing Act increased the
        quantity of crack cocaine necessary to trigger the highest statutory
        penalties from 50 grams to 280 grams and the quantity of crack co-
        caine necessary to trigger intermediate statutory penalties from 5
        grams to 28 grams. See Fair Sentencing Act § 2; 21 U.S.C
        § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii), (B)(iii). The Fair Sentencing Act’s reduced penal-
        ties applied only to defendants who were sentenced on or after the
        Fair Sentencing Act’s effective date. Dorsey v. United States, 567
        U.S. 260, 264 (2012).
               Later, Congress passed the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L.
        No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018). Among other things, the First
        Step Act gave district courts discretion to apply retroactively the
        Fair Sentencing Act’s reduced statutory penalties for crack-cocaine
        offenses to defendants who were sentenced before the Fair Sen-
        tencing Act went into effect. United States v. Clowers, No. 20-
        13074, F.4th , 2023 WL 2484795, at *1 (11th Cir. Mar. 14, 2023).
               In 2019, Raines filed a motion for a sentence reduction under
        § 404 of the First Step Act. He argued that he was eligible for a sen-
        tence reduction under the First Step Act because the Fair
USCA11 Case: 21-12831      Document: 48-1     Date Filed: 04/05/2023     Page: 4 of 13

        4                      Opinion of the Court                21-12831

        Sentencing Act changed the statutory penalty range for his offense.
        He urged the court to exercise its discretion to award him a reduc-
        tion and argued that he had been rehabilitated while incarcerated.
        He also asked the court to consider other intervening changes, in-
        cluding Raines’s claim that he would no longer qualify as a career
        offender.
               About 18 months later and while his motion seeking a sen-
        tence reduction based on § 404 remained pending, Raines filed a
        motion for compassionate release. He requested a sentence reduc-
        tion because he suffered from underlying health conditions that put
        him at a greater risk of developing severe health consequences if
        he contracted COVID-19.
                In December 2020, the district court entered an order ad-
        dressing both motions. As to the motion seeking a sentence reduc-
        tion under § 404 of the First Step Act, the district court found that
        Raines was eligible for a sentence reduction. But it deferred decid-
        ing whether to exercise its discretion and award a sentence reduc-
        tion. It directed the government to file a response addressing that
        issue.
               Regarding Raines’s motion seeking compassionate release,
        the district court concluded that Raines was ineligible for a sen-
        tence reduction. The court explained that to be eligible Raines had
        to show that “extraordinary and compelling reasons” supported a
        sentence reduction. Doc. 196 at 7 (internal quotation marks
USCA11 Case: 21-12831         Document: 48-1        Date Filed: 04/05/2023   Page: 5 of 13

        21-12831                   Opinion of the Court                        5

        omitted). 1 And the court concluded that Raines failed to make such
        a showing.
                After the court entered this order, the government submit-
        ted its response to Raines’s § 404 motion. The government took no
        position on whether the court should award a sentence reduction.
        It identified several factors that could counsel against a sentence
        reduction, including the quantity of drugs involved in Raines’s of-
        fense and the serious nature of Raines’s criminal history, which in-
        cluded two incidents in which he pointed a gun at a victim’s head.
        The government also argued that even given intervening changes
        in the law, Raines still qualified as a career offender.
               But the government acknowledged that other factors coun-
        seled in favor of a sentence reduction. It noted that Raines com-
        pleted over 1,200 hours of educational, exercise, and vocational
        courses while incarcerated. And it noted that during his lengthy in-
        carceration, he had only three disciplinary incidents with no inci-
        dents in the past ten years. The government requested that if
        Raines received a sentence reduction his sentence be at least 262
        months, which was at the bottom of the applicable guidelines
        range given his career offender status.
               After reviewing the government’s response, the district
        court entered an order denying Raines’s motion for relief under the
        First Step Act. The district court declined to exercise its discretion

        1 “Doc.” numbers refer to the district court’s docket entries.
USCA11 Case: 21-12831          Document: 48-1         Date Filed: 04/05/2023          Page: 6 of 13

        6                           Opinion of the Court                        21-12831

        after considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. 2 The court
        acknowledged there were “mitigating considerations” and cited ev-
        idence of Raines’s rehabilitation while he was incarcerated. Doc.
        199 at 1. But the court ultimately found that other factors, includ-
        ing the amount of crack cocaine involved in the offense and
        Raines’s criminal history, weighed against awarding a reduction. In
        its order, the court expressly found that “even if Raines were sen-
        tenced today,” he still would qualify as a career offender and his
        guidelines range would remain at 262 to 327 months. Doc. 199 at
        2. Because Raines’s current sentence remained within the applica-
        ble guidelines range, the court declined to exercise its discretion.
                This is Raines’s appeal.

                                                II.

        2 Section § 3553(a) states that a court should “impose a sentence sufficient, but
        not greater than necessary” to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote
        respect for the law, provide just punishment for the offense, afford adequate
        deterrence to criminal conduct, protect the public from further crimes of the
        defendant, and provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational
        training. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). In imposing a sentence, a court also should
        consider: the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and charac-
        teristics of the defendant, the kinds of sentences available, the sentencing
        range established under the guidelines, any pertinent policy statement issued
        by the Sentencing Commission, the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing
        disparities, and the need to provide restitution to victims. Id. § 3553(a)(1), (3)–
        (7).
USCA11 Case: 21-12831       Document: 48-1       Date Filed: 04/05/2023     Page: 7 of 13

        21-12831                Opinion of the Court                          7

               We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s denial
        of an eligible movant’s request for a reduced sentence under the
        First Step Act. United States v. Jackson, 58 F.4th 1331, 1335 (11th
        Cir. 2023). “A district court abuses its discretion if it applies an in-
        correct legal standard, applies the law in an unreasonable or incor-
        rect manner, follows improper procedures in making a determina-
        tion, or makes findings of fact that are clearly erroneous.” Diveroli
        v. United States, 803 F.3d 1258, 1262 (11th Cir. 2015) (internal quo-
        tation marks omitted).
               We review de novo whether a defendant is eligible for a sen-
        tence reduction based on compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. §
        3582(c)(1)(A). United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1251 (11th
        Cir. 2021).
            We liberally construe pro se filings. Jones v. Fla. Parole
        Comm’n, 787 F.3d 1105, 1107 (11th Cir. 2015).
                                          III.
               Raines argues on appeal that the district court erred when it
        declined to exercise its discretion to reduce his sentence under
        § 404(b) of the First Step Act and found that he was ineligible for
        compassionate release. We address each issue in turn.

                                          A.
USCA11 Case: 21-12831      Document: 48-1      Date Filed: 04/05/2023     Page: 8 of 13

        8                      Opinion of the Court                 21-12831

               We begin with Raines’s argument that the district court
        erred in declining to award him a sentence reduction under § 404
        of the First Step Act.
                A district court has no inherent authority to modify a de-
        fendant’s sentence and may do so “only when authorized by a stat-
        ute or rule.” United States v. Puentes, 803 F.3d 597, 606 (11th Cir.
        2015); see 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). Section 404 of the First Step Act au-
        thorizes district courts to exercise their discretion and apply retro-
        actively the reduced statutory penalties for crack-cocaine offenses
        set forth in the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. See Clowers, 2023 WL
        2484795, at *1. In deciding whether to exercise the discretion to
        award eligible defendants sentence reductions under § 404, district
        courts must “consider intervening changes when parties raise
        them.” Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2404 (2022).
        Still, nothing in § 404 “require[s] a court to reduce any sentence.”
        Id. at 2404 (internal quotation marks omitted). In ruling on § 404
        motions, district courts bear the standard obligation to explain
        their decisions, and accordingly must give a “brief statement of rea-
        sons” to “demonstrate that they considered the parties’ argu-
        ments.” Id.
               Here, we liberally construe Raines’s § 404 motion as arguing
        that the district court should exercise its discretion to reduce his
        sentence because of intervening changes that occurred after
        Raines’s sentencing, including that because of intervening changes
        he would no longer qualify as a career offender if he were
USCA11 Case: 21-12831      Document: 48-1      Date Filed: 04/05/2023     Page: 9 of 13

        21-12831               Opinion of the Court                         9

        sentenced today. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Concep-
        cion, the district court was required to consider this argument. See
        id.
              The district court made a legal error in rejecting Raines’s ar-
        gument regarding his career offender status. The district court con-
        cluded that Raines would still qualify as a career offender if he were
        sentenced today. We disagree.
               Intervening changes in the law make clear that Raines would
        not qualify as a career offender if he were sentenced today. The
        Sentencing Guidelines explain that for a defendant to qualify as a
        career offender, a district court must find, among other things, that
        the defendant’s “instant offense of conviction is a felony that is ei-
        ther a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.” U.S.
        Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1 (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2018). For
        purposes of the career-offender guideline, a “controlled substance
        offense” is an
              an offense under federal or state law, punishable by
              imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, that
              prohibits the manufacture, import, export, distribu-
              tion, or dispensing of a controlled substance (or a
              counterfeit substance) or the possession of a con-
              trolled substance (or a counterfeit substance) with in-
              tent to manufacture, import, export, distribute, or
              dispense.

        Id. § 4B1.2. Our recent decision in United States v. Dupree makes
        clear that Raines’s offense in this case—conspiracy to distribute a
USCA11 Case: 21-12831      Document: 48-1      Date Filed: 04/05/2023      Page: 10 of 13

        10                      Opinion of the Court                  21-12831

        controlled substance—does not qualify as a “controlled substance
        offense” under the career offender guideline. 57 F.4th 1269, 1280
        (11th Cir. 2023) (en banc). As a result, if Raines were sentenced to-
        day, he would not receive a career-offender enhancement. We thus
        conclude that the district court made a legal error.
               The government argues that the district court’s error was
        harmless. A sentencing error is harmless when we “know with cer-
        tainty beyond a reasonable doubt what the district court would do
        upon remand.” United States v. Robles, 408 F.3d 1324, 1327–28
        (11th Cir. 2005). An error in classifying a defendant as a career of-
        fender is harmless when the district court “clearly state[s]” that it
        would reach the same conclusion “regardless of the [defendant’s]
        status as a career offender.” United States v. Eason, 953 F.3d 1184,
        1195 n.8 (11th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted),
               The government says that the portion of the district court’s
        order weighing the § 3553(a) factors demonstrates that on remand
        the district court would again deny Raines’s motion. But after care-
        fully reviewing the district court’s order, we cannot say that we
        “know with certainty beyond a reasonable doubt” that the district
        court would reach this conclusion. Robles, 408 F.3d at 1327–28. In
        its order, the district court never “clearly state[d]” that it would de-
        cline to exercise its discretion “regardless of [Raines’s] status as a
        career offender.” Eason, 953 F.3d at 1195 n.8 (internal quotation
        marks omitted). Indeed, nothing in the section of the order address-
        ing the § 3553(a) factors indicates that the court assumed Raines
USCA11 Case: 21-12831      Document: 48-1      Date Filed: 04/05/2023      Page: 11 of 13

        21-12831                Opinion of the Court                         11

        would no longer qualify a career offender. We thus must reject the
        government’s harmlessness argument.
               Given the district court’s error, we vacate the order denying
        Raines’s motion for a sentence reduction under § 404 of the First
        Step Act. We remand the case so that the district court may address
        in the first instance whether to exercise its discretion in light of the
        fact that Raines would not qualify as a career offender if he were
        sentenced today. We express no opinion about whether, given this
        intervening change in the law, the district court should exercise its
        discretion to award a sentence reduction.
                                          B.
               We now turn to Raines’s argument that the district court
        erred in denying his motion for compassionate release.
               A statute authorizes a district court to reduce a defendant’s
        sentence when: (1) there are “extraordinary and compelling rea-
        sons” for a reduction, (2) the factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
        favor a reduction, and (3) awarding a reduction is consistent with
        the policy statement set forth in § 1B1.13 of the Sentencing Guide-
        lines. United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237 (11th Cir. 2021);
        see 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). If the district court finds that the de-
        fendant failed to satisfy any one of these requirements, it cannot
        grant relief and need not analyze the other requirements. Tinker,
        14 F.4th at 1238.
             Raines argues on appeal that the district court erred when it
        found he was ineligible for a sentence reduction under
USCA11 Case: 21-12831        Document: 48-1         Date Filed: 04/05/2023         Page: 12 of 13

        12                         Opinion of the Court                       21-12831

        § 3582(c)(1)(A) and thus denied his motion for compassionate re-
        lease. The government argues that this portion of the appeal
        should be dismissed because it is untimely. 3 We agree with the
        government.
              Under the Federal Rules of Appellate Practice, Raines was
        required to file a notice of appeal “within 14 days” of the entry of
        the order denying his motion for compassionate release. Fed. R.
        App. P. 4(b)(1). Although the district court entered its order deny-
        ing Raines’s motion for compassionate release in December 2020,
        Raines did not file his notice of appeal until August 2021, approxi-
        mately eight months later. Raines’s appeal of the order denying his
        motion for compassionate release therefore was untimely, and we
        dismiss the portion of his appeal challenging that order.
                                              IV.
               For the above, we vacate the district court’s order denying
        Raines’s motion for a sentence reduction under § 404 of the First
        Step Act and remand for further proceedings. We dismiss the por-
        tion of this appeal seeking to challenge the district court’s order
        denying Raines’s motion for compassionate release.

        3 The government also argues that we lack jurisdiction over this portion of
        Raines’s appeal because he did not identify the district court’s order denying
        his motion for compassionate release in his notice of appeal. But his notice of
        appeal, liberally construed, evinces an intent to appeal the denial of his motion
        seeking a sentence reduction under § 404 of the First Step Act as well as the
        denial of his motion seeking compassionate release.
USCA11 Case: 21-12831   Document: 48-1   Date Filed: 04/05/2023   Page: 13 of 13

        21-12831            Opinion of the Court                   13

              VACATED and REMANDED in part, DISMISSED in part.