United States v. Jeffrey Stringer , 636 F. App'x 770 ( 2016 )

Case: 15-12102 Date Filed: 01/26/2016 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-12102
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:98-cr-08005-DTKH-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JEFFREY STRINGER,
a.k.a. Jeffery Stringer,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(January 26, 2016)
Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-12102 Date Filed: 01/26/2016 Page: 2 of 7
Defendant Jeffrey Stringer, proceeding with counsel, appeals the district
court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 of the Sentencing Guidelines. After careful
review, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
In 1998, a federal grand jury charged Defendant with: (1) manufacturing
cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (“Count 1”); (2) possession
with intent to distribute cocaine base (“Count 2”), in violation of § 841(a)(1); and
(3) possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of § 841(a)(1) (“Count
3”). Prior to trial, the Government filed a notice of enhancement based on
Defendant’s prior convictions pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851(a)(1). Defendant
proceeded to trial and a jury convicted him on all three counts in the indictment.
In anticipation of sentencing, the probation officer prepared Defendant’s
Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”). The PSR indicated that Defendant was
a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 because he had two prior convictions for
either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense. Because the statutory
maximum for at least one of the Defendant’s present offenses was life
imprisonment, Defendant’s career offender status resulted in a base offense level
of 37. Receiving no reduction for acceptance of responsibility, Defendant’s total
offense level was 37. Due to his numerous prior convictions and his career
2
Case: 15-12102 Date Filed: 01/26/2016 Page: 3 of 7
offender designation, the PSR assigned Defendant a criminal history category of
VI. Based on a total offense level of 37 and a criminal history category of VI, the
PSR calculated Defendant’s initial guideline range as 360 months to life.
However, because the statutory mandatory minimum for Counts 1 and 2 was life,
Defendant’s guideline range for those counts was life imprisonment. As to Count
3, which carried a statutory maximum of 360 months, Defendant’s guideline range
was 360 months’ imprisonment.
The district court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment as to Counts 1
and 2, and 360 months’ imprisonment as to Count 3, to run concurrently with each
other. On appeal, we affirmed.
In January 2015, Defendant filed a letter with the district court regarding his
eligibility for a sentence reduction. The district court construed his letter as a
motion for sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment
782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, and appointed the Office of the Federal Public
Defender to represent Defendant.
The district court ultimately denied Defendant’s motion, concluding that, as
a career offender, Defendant was not eligible for a sentence reduction. Defendant
moved for reconsideration, which was denied by the district court. Defendant now
appeals from that decision, arguing that he is eligible for a sentence reduction
based on Amendment 782. He contends that the district court improperly relied on
3
Case: 15-12102 Date Filed: 01/26/2016 Page: 4 of 7
his status as a career offender in finding that he was ineligible for relief because
one of his predicate offenses was not a crime of violence in light of the Supreme
Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. at __, 135 S. Ct. 2551(2015).
II. DISCUSSION
We review de novo a district court’s legal conclusions on the scope of its
authority under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Jones, 548 F.3d 1366, 1368 (11th
Cir. 2008). Under § 3582(c)(2), a district court may modify a term of
imprisonment when the original sentencing range has subsequently been lowered
as a result of an amendment to the Guidelines by the Sentencing Commission. 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
When determining whether a defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction, a
district court is to consider only the effect of the applicable guideline amendment,
and all other original sentencing determinations are to remain the same. United
States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780–81 (11th Cir. 2000); see also Dillon v. United
States, 560 U.S. 817, 831 (2010) (holding that the alleged sentencing errors that the
Defendant sought to correct were not affected by the applicable guideline
amendment and were therefore outside the scope of the § 3582(c)(2) proceedings).
In order to be eligible for a sentence reduction, a defendant must identify an
amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines that is listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d).
4
Case: 15-12102 Date Filed: 01/26/2016 Page: 5 of 7
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1). However, a district court may not use a guideline
amendment to reduce a defendant’s sentence unless the amendment actually lowers
the defendant’s applicable guideline range. Id. 1B1.10(a)(2)(B); id. § 1B1.10,
comment. (n.1(A)). Moreover, in cases where a guideline amendment would lower
a defendant’s otherwise-applicable guideline range, the district court lacks
jurisdiction to consider a § 3582(c)(2) motion if the defendant’s guideline range
was based on a statutory mandatory minimum sentence. United States v. Liberse,
688 F.3d 1198, 1201 (11th Cir. 2012); United States v. Mills, 613 F.3d 1070,
1076–78 (11th Cir. 2010).
Amendment 782 reduced the base offense level for most drug offenses by
two levels. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d); U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 782 (2014).
Amendment 782 did not make any changes to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, the career
offender guideline. See U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 782 (2014).
When a defendant is sentenced as a career offender, his base offense level is
determined by § 4B1.1, not under the Drug Quantity Table set forth in U.S.S.G.
§ 2D1.1(c). U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1; United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1327 (11th
Cir. 2008). In Moore, we considered whether defendants who were sentenced as
career offenders under § 4B1.1 were eligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief in light of
Amendment 706, which like Amendment 782, lowered the § 2D1.1(c) base offense
levels for certain quantities of crack cocaine. 541 F.3d at 1325. We held that the
5
Case: 15-12102 Date Filed: 01/26/2016 Page: 6 of 7
defendants did not qualify for § 3582(c)(2) relief because Amendment 706 had no
effect on their applicable guideline ranges, which had been calculated under
§ 4B1.1. Id. at 1327–28, 1330; see also United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317,
1321 (11th Cir. 2012) (holding that Moore remained binding precedent and that
Amendment 750 did not lower the guideline range for career offenders).
Here, the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s § 3582(c)(2)
motion. Defendant’s total offense level and applicable guideline range were not
based on the drug quantity offense levels in § 2D1.1, but instead were based on the
career offender level in § 4B1.1. Because Defendant’s guideline range was not
based on the drug quantity guidelines, Amendment 782 did not lower the
sentencing range upon which Defendant’s sentence was based. 1 See Lawson, 686
F.3d at 1321; Moore, 541 F.3d at 1327–28, 1330.
Defendant argues for the first time on appeal that his amended guideline
range should be calculated without respect to his career offender designation given
the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson. We review sentencing challenges raised
for the first time on appeal for plain error. 2 United States v. Moreno, 421 F.3d
1Notwithstanding Defendant’s career offender designation, Defendant would also be ineligible
for a sentence reduction with respect to Counts 1 and 2 because his applicable guideline range
was based on the statutory mandatory minimum term of life imprisonment. Liberse, 688 F.3d at
1201. He would, however, be eligible for a sentence reduction as to Count 3 because his
guideline range was not based on any statutory mandatory minimum sentence.
2
Under plain error review, we will reverse where there is “(1) an error (2) that is plain and
(3) that has affected the defendant’s substantial rights; and . . . (4) the error seriously affects the
6
Case: 15-12102 Date Filed: 01/26/2016 Page: 7 of 7
1217, 1220 (11th Cir. 2005). But Defendant cannot show that the district court
erred plainly, or otherwise, because the district court was only permitted to
consider the effect of the guideline amendment and was required to leave all
original sentencing determinations intact. Bravo, 203 F.3d at 780–81; see also
Dillon, 560 U.S. at 831. In short, Defendant cannot challenge his career offender
designation in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. Accordingly, the district court
committed no error in concluding that Defendant was ineligible for a sentence
reduction under § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782.
AFFIRMED.
fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Madden, 733
F.3d 1314, 1322 (11th Cir. 2013).
7