United States v. Jonathan White , 479 F. App'x 944 ( 2012 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 27, 2012
No. 11-15988
Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY
CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:99-cr-00067-WTH-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JONATHAN WHITE,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(June 27, 2012)
Before EDMONDSON, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jonathan White, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district
court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion requesting that his 262-month
sentence, imposed for crack possession, be reduced. Specifically, White argues
that the district court had jurisdiction to amend his sentence in light of
Amendment 7501 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which reduced the base offense
levels corresponding to crack possession, and in light of the congressional intent
behind the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-220 (“FSA”), which
indicated that Congress believed the penalties for crack possession offenses were
too high.
We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions, in a § 3582
proceeding, regarding the scope of its authority under the Sentencing Guidelines.
United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1326 (11th Cir. 2008). Under § 3582(c),
the district court “may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been
imposed except . . . (2) in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a
term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been
1
Effective November 1, 2011, Amendment 750 increased the quantities of crack cocaine
necessary to trigger certain statutory minimum sentencing requirements. See U.S.S.G. App. C,
Amend. 750 (2011). Amendment 750 also lowered the base offense levels corresponding to
most crack possession offenses. See id.
2
lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). A modification is
permitted only “if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements
issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The Sentencing
Guidelines, in a policy statement, note that a reduction in sentence as the result of
an amended guideline range is not proper if the “amendment . . . does not have the
effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range.” U.S.S.G. §
1B1.10(a)(2)(B). Similarly, no reduction is warranted where “the amendment does
not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range because
of the operation of another guideline.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(A)).
In Moore, we addressed the issue of whether Amendment 706 to the
Sentencing Guidelines (which similarly reduced the base offense levels for crack
possession offenses) authorized reductions under § 3582(c)(2) for defendants who
had been convicted of crack possession offenses, but had been sentenced under the
career offender guidelines. See Moore, 541 F.3d at 1325. We held that the
language of § 3582(c)(2) only authorizes reductions to sentences that were “based
on” sentencing ranges that were subsequently lowered. Id. at 1327. As
Amendment 706 lowered the base offense levels for crack possession, but not the
base offense levels under the career offender sentencing scheme, we found that it
did not lower the sentencing range upon which a career offender’s sentence had
3
been based. Id. We also discussed U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(A)), and
noted that it “[made] clear” that a § 3582(c)(2) reduction was not warranted where
an amendment lowers a defendant’s base offense levels for the offense of
conviction, but not the career offender sentencing range under which the
defendant was sentenced. Id. at 1327-28.
Here, Amendment 750 lowered the base offense levels for crack possession
offenses, but did not affect the career offender guideline calculations. Thus,
because White was sentenced under the career offender guideline calculations,
Amendment 750 did not lower White’s applicable sentencing range and did not
grant the district court jurisdiction to modify White’s sentence under § 3582(c)(2).
Similarly, while the FSA expresses an intent to lower the penalties imposed for
crack possession offenses, it shows no such intent towards the penalties for career
offenders.
AFFIRMED.
4