United States v. Timothy Hatten ( 2016 )

Case: 15-11091 Date Filed: 04/06/2016 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-11091
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:90-cr-08065-JIC-9
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TIMOTHY HATTEN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 6, 2016)
Before TJOFLAT, MARTIN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-11091 Date Filed: 04/06/2016 Page: 2 of 5
Timothy Hatten appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction. The district court denied his motion
because the drug quantity attributed to him at the original sentencing hearing
meant that Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines did not
affect his sentencing range. Hatten was originally sentenced to life imprisonment
for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) and 846, as well as possession with the intent to
distribute cocaine and cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and
18 U.S.C. § 2. His sentence was later reduced to 360-months imprisonment.
On appeal, Hatten argues that the district court erroneously based its
determination on the sentencing court’s conversion of the quantity of powder
cocaine he possessed into crack cocaine, and then into a marijuana equivalency.
Hatten further argues that Alleyne v. United States, __ U.S. __, 133 S. Ct. 2151
(2013), which held that any fact that increases a defendant’s mandatory minimum
sentence must be submitted to the jury, id. at 2155, highlights the impropriety of
the sentencing court’s drug quantity determination. Beyond that, Hatten asserts
that the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) favor granting him a sentence
reduction. After careful review, we affirm.
2
Case: 15-11091 Date Filed: 04/06/2016 Page: 3 of 5
I.
“We review de novo a district court’s conclusions about the scope of its
legal authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).” United States v. Jones, 548 F.3d
1366, 1368 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). Under § 3582(c)(2), a district court may
reduce an incarcerated defendant’s term of imprisonment “when that defendant
was sentenced based on a sentencing range that was subsequently lowered by the
Sentencing Commission.” United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780 (11th Cir.
2000). A district court must engage in a two-step analysis when considering a
motion for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). Id. First, the court must
recalculate the defendant’s sentence using the new sentencing range and holding
all other Guidelines findings made at the original sentence hearing constant. Id. If
a defendant’s sentencing range would not be lowered by an amendment, the court
may not reduce the sentence. United States v. Hamilton, 715 F.3d 328, 337 (11th
Cir. 2013). Second, the court must consider the § 3553(a) factors in determining
whether to reduce the defendant’s sentence. Bravo, 203 F.3d at 781.
However, a court need not examine the § 3553(a) factors if it correctly
recognizes it has no authority under § 3582(c)(2) to reduce a defendant’s sentence.
See United States v. Webb, 565 F.3d 789, 793 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). “[A]
sentencing adjustment undertaken pursuant to Section 3582(c)(2) does not
constitute a de novo resentencing.” Bravo, 203 F.3d at 781. Accordingly,
3
Case: 15-11091 Date Filed: 04/06/2016 Page: 4 of 5
§ 3582(c)(2) does not “grant to the court jurisdiction to consider extraneous
sentencing issues.” Id. at 782.
Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines revised the Drug Quantity
Table in § 2D1.1(c). USSG App. C, Amend. 782. In pertinent part, the
amendment increased the quantity of marijuana necessary to qualify for a base
offense level of 38 from at least 30,000 kilograms to at least 90,000 kilograms of
marijuana. Compare USSG § 2D1.1(c)(1) (2013), with USSG § 2D1.1(c)(1)
(2014). Amendment 782 became effective on November 1, 2014 and was made
retroactive by Amendment 788 the same day. USSG App. C, Amends. 782 & 788;
USSG § 1B1.10(d).
II.
The district court did not err in holding that it lacked authority to reduce
Hatten’s sentence under Amendment 782 since that amendment did not actually
lower Hatten’s sentencing range. At the original sentence hearing, the sentencing
judge made a clear finding of the drug quantity attributable to Hatten—over
1,600,000 kilograms of marijuana. To arrive at that quantity, the district court
converted 100 kilograms of cocaine to 1,600,000 kilograms of marijuana
equivalent. In addition, Hatten was held responsible for 1.106 grams of marijuana.
Under the 1992 Sentencing Guidelines, Hatten’s original base offense level was
42. See USSG § 2D1.1(a)(3)(c)(1) (1992).
4
Case: 15-11091 Date Filed: 04/06/2016 Page: 5 of 5
After Hatten’s previous motion to reduce his sentence was granted, Hatten’s
base offense level was reduced to 38. While Amendment 782 raised the quantity
of marijuana required for a base offense level of 38 from 30,000 kilograms to
90,000 kilograms, Hatten was sentenced based on over 1,600,000 kilograms of
marijuana equivalent. He would therefore still receive a base offense level of 38
even with Amendment 782 taken into account. Because Hatten’s sentencing range
would remain unchanged, the district court did not err in concluding that it lacked
authority to grant Hatten’s motion for a sentence reduction based on Amendment
782.
Because the district court correctly concluded that it lacked authority to
reduce Hatten’s sentence pursuant to § 3582(c), the court was not required to
consider the § 3553(a) factors. See Webb, 565 F.3d at 793. Moreover, any
arguments about the implications of Alleyne are irrelevant because Mr. Hatten’s
mandatory minimum sentence was unchanged. In addition, any argument based on
Alleyne is extraneous to the district court’s determination as to whether it could
reduce Hatten’s sentence. See Bravo, 203 F.3d at 782. We therefore affirm.
AFFIRMED.
5