Jerry Jerome Anderson v. United States , 241 F. App'x 625 ( 2007 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
July 18, 2007
No. 06-14092 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 90-00003-CR-WDO-5
JERRY JEROME ANDERSON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
_________________________
(July 18, 2007)
Before ANDERSON, BIRCH and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jerry Jerome Anderson (“Anderson”) appeals, pro se, the district court’s
denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of his sentence. As
explained below, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his
motion because (1) it followed the requisite procedures of recalculating his
sentence under amended guidelines, determining what sentence it would have
imposed, and deciding whether to impose the newly calculated sentence or retain
the original sentence after consulting the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; (2) the
court’s failure to rule on the motion for several years has no bearing on its merits;
and (3) the court was not required to permit Anderson to allocute in support of a
lesser sentence. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
I. BACKGROUND
A federal jury convicted Anderson in 1990 of the following four counts: (1)
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute controlled
substances; (2) possession with intent to distribute controlled substances; (3)
operating a continuing criminal enterprise; and (4) conspiracy to launder currency;
as well as three counts of money laundering. The district court sentenced him to a
term of life imprisonment in 1991. In doing so, the court determined that the
offense conduct involved more than 15 kilograms of cocaine base. Anderson’s
base offense level was 42 with a four-level increase for a continuing criminal
2
enterprise. He had a criminal history category III and the only sentencing option
under the then-mandatory guidelines, life imprisonment, was the sentence he
received.
Anderson appealed and, in 1992, we vacated Anderson’s drug conspiracy
count, but affirmed in all other respects. Anderson’s ultimate sentence was not
affected.
In March 1997, Anderson filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his
sentence, which the district court denied on the merits less than five months later.
Anderson appealed and we affirmed.
In March 1999, Anderson filed the present motion for a sentence reduction
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582, based on Amendment 505 to the Sentencing Guidelines,
arguing that: (1) the highest offense level in the Drug Quantity Table had been
lowered from level 42 to level 38; (2) the four-level increase constituted
impermissible double counting; and (3) the new guideline range was 292 to 365
months’ imprisonment. Anderson did not claim that he had the right to be present
when the district court ruled on his motion. In May 1999, the government
responded that the newly applicable range was 360 months’ to life imprisonment
and the evidence at trial still made a life sentence appropriate. No activity in the
3
case occurred between that point and mid-2006.1 On or about 5 July 2006,
Anderson moved this court for a writ of mandamus compelling the district court to
rule on his motion. Ultimately, this became unnecessary since the district court
ruled on the motion on 20 July 2006.
In its order, the district court denied Anderson’s § 3582 motion. The court
recalculated the guideline range and determined that the new range was 360
months to life in prison. The court then noted the amount of drugs, 15 kilograms
or more of cocaine base, stated that it had considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors, and determined that life imprisonment remained the appropriate sentence.
Accordingly, it declined to reduce his sentence.
Anderson timely appealed. We initially denied in forma pauperis status,
holding that the appeal was frivolous, but Anderson later paid the requisite filing
fee.
II. DISCUSSION
Liberally construing his pro se brief, Anderson generally argues that the
district court abused its discretion in denying his § 3582 motion. He also
specifically contends that (1) the district court failed to comply with the applicable
1
In January 2006, Anderson filed a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion to review the 1997 denial
of his § 2255 motion. The district court construed the Rule 60(b) motion as an impermissibly
successive § 2255 motion to vacate and denied it.
4
law because his motion for reduction of sentence was pending for over seven years,
and (2) the district court was required to permit him to allocute before ruling on the
sentence reduction motion and, because it did not, the court did not consider the
factors in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b). Finally, Anderson contends that his new
guideline range should have been 360 months to life.2
We review a district court’s decision whether to reduce a defendant’s
sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion. United States
v. Brown, 332 F.3d 1341, 1343 (11th Cir. 2003). A district court may abuse its
discretion by making an error of law. Id. (citation omitted). Because Anderson is
proceeding pro se, we have liberally construed his pleadings. Tannenbaum v.
United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam).
Ordinarily, a district court cannot modify a term of imprisonment once
imposed. United States v. Moreno, 421 F.3d 1217, 1219 (11th Cir. 2005) (per
curiam), cert. denied, 126 S.Ct. 1643 (2006). “Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2),
[however,] a district court has discretion to reduce the term of imprisonment of an
already incarcerated defendant when that defendant was sentenced based on a
2
Anderson does not argue, as he did before the district court, that the appropriate
guideline range was 292 to 365 months’ imprisonment. Accordingly, any claim in this respect is
deemed waived. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005)
(“[w]hen an appellant fails to offer argument on an issue, that issue is abandoned” and passing
references to the issue are insufficient to prevent abandonment).
5
sentencing range that was subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(o).” United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780 (11th
Cir. 2000).
In considering a motion for such a reduction, the district court conducts a
two-part analysis. Id. First, it must recalculate the sentence under the amended
guidelines, substitute the amended guideline range for the original guideline range,
and then determine what sentence it would have imposed. Id.; U.S.S.G. §
1B1.10(b) (2006); United States v. Vautier, 144 F.3d 756, 760 (11th Cir. 1998).
Only the amended guideline range is altered; all the “other guideline application
decisions made during the original sentencing remain intact.” Vautier, 144 F.3d
756, 760. The second part of the analysis consists of deciding whether to impose
the newly calculated sentence or retain the original sentence. Bravo, 203 F.3d at
780. This decision is made by consulting the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Id. The
district court is not required to “articulate specifically the applicability – if any –
of each of the section 3553(a) factors, as long as the record demonstrates that the
pertinent factors were taken into account by the district court.” United States v.
Eggersdorf, 126 F.3d 1318, 1322 (11th Cir. 1997).
Section 3582(c) “does not grant to the court jurisdiction to consider
extraneous resentencing issues such as [constitutional issues more appropriate for
6
collateral attack.]” Bravo, 203 F.3d at 782. Instead, “any retroactive reduction in
sentence subsequent to a motion filed under § 3582(c)(2) must be ‘consistent with
applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.’” United
States v. Armstrong, 347 F.3d 905, 907 (11th Cir. 2003) (citing 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2)).
Amendment 505 amended U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c), by, inter alia, setting the
base offense level for 1.5 kilograms or more of cocaine base at 38, where,
previously, the level was as high as 42. U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 505 (2006). The
Sentencing Commission’s policy statement on retroactive reduction of sentences,
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, indicates that Amendment 505 is retroactively applicable.
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c).
A sentencing adjustment under § 3582(c)(2) is not a de novo resentencing.
Moreno, 421 F.3d at 1220. Although the defendant must be present at his initial
sentencing, he “need not be present at proceedings involving the correction or
reduction of sentence under . . . 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).” United States v. Parrish,
427 F.3d 1345, 1347 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Fed.R.Crim.P. 43(a)(3), (b)(4))
(quotation marks omitted).
Although it is unclear whether Anderson fully preserved all of the issues he
raises on appeal before the district court, assuming arguendo that he has, no
7
indication exists that the district court misapplied any of the applicable law or that
denial of Anderson’s motion was an abuse of discretion.
In arriving at Anderson’s original sentence, the district court assigned a base
offense level of 42. Subsequently, Amendment 505 to the sentencing guidelines
established an upper limit of 38 on base offense levels calculated using drug
quantity. See U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 505 (2006). Anderson’s base offense level
would have been lower had he been sentenced after the effective date of
Amendment 505, and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 of the sentencing guidelines authorized
the district court to reduce his sentence. Nevertheless, the district court exercised
its discretion not to reduce Anderson’s sentence. The court followed the requisite
procedures, recalculating the sentencing range and considering the § 3553(a)
factors. The court noted that, although the new guideline range was 360 months’
to life imprisonment, the offense still involved 15 kilograms or more of cocaine
base. After stating that it had considered the § 3553(a) factors, the court found that
a life sentence remained appropriate. Thus, denial of the requested sentence
reduction was not an abuse of discretion.
Moreover, neither Section 3582 nor any other provision suggests that delay
by a district court in ruling on a motion for a sentence reduction can serve as a
basis for granting it. Anderson did not file a petition for writ of mandamus until
8
more than seven years after he filed his § 3582 motion, and after he did so, we
concluded that the ruling by the district court rendered the petition moot.
Finally, Anderson had no right to be present before the court ruled on his §
3582(c) motion. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43(b)(4), a
defendant’s presence at a § 3582(c) sentence correction proceeding is not required.
III. CONCLUSION
An examination of the record in this case discloses that the district court
properly addressed Anderson’s motion for reduction of sentence made pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and committed no error. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
9