United States v. Nathaniel Hargrove , 732 F.3d 1253 ( 2013 )

Case: 12-13231 Date Filed: 10/15/2013 Page: 1 of 5
[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-13231
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cr-00399-SCB-AEP-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
NATHANIEL HARGROVE,
a.k.a. Frog,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(October 15, 2013)
Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
KRAVITCH, Circuit Judge:
Nathaniel Hargrove appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence. Hargrove was subject to a statutory
Case: 12-13231 Date Filed: 10/15/2013 Page: 2 of 5
mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment, but a retroactive
amendment to the sentencing guidelines lowered his applicable guidelines range
from 120 to 125 months’ imprisonment to simply 120 months. We hold that a
defendant subject to a statutory mandatory minimum is eligible for § 3582(c)(2)
relief when he was sentenced above that minimum and a retroactive guidelines
amendment lowers the high-end of his applicable guidelines range. Because the
district court erroneously concluded it lacked the authority to consider Hargrove’s
motion, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for the court to determine
whether to exercise its discretion to reduce Hargrove’s sentence.
Hargrove was convicted in 2010 of four counts of distributing crack cocaine,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(iii), and (b)(1)(C) (2009). At
sentencing, the district court held Hargrove responsible for 16.4 grams of crack
cocaine, resulting in a guidelines range of 100 to 125 months’ imprisonment under
the drug quantity tables in place at the time. But because Hargrove had a prior
felony drug conviction, he faced a mandatory 120-month statutory minimum,
which changed his guidelines range to 120 to 125 months’ imprisonment. See id.§ 841(b)(1)(B)(iii) (2009); U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(c)(2). The district court then
departed upward under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3, increasing Hargrove’s guidelines range
to 210 to 262 months’ imprisonment. The court sentenced Hargrove to 240
months.
2
Case: 12-13231 Date Filed: 10/15/2013 Page: 3 of 5
In 2012, Hargrove requested a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). The
district court found Hargrove ineligible for relief because his guidelines range was
based on a statutory mandatory minimum. This is Hargrove’s appeal.
“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. James, 548 F.3d 983,
984 (11th Cir. 2008). That statute allows a district court to reduce a defendant’s
sentence when a retroactive amendment to the sentencing guidelines lowers his
applicable guidelines range. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, cmt.
(n.1(A)). A sentence reduction is not authorized, however, when “the amendment
does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range
because of the operation of [a] . . . statutory provision (e.g., a statutory mandatory
minimum term of imprisonment).” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, cmt. (n.1(A)). Hargrove
argues that he was entitled to a reduction because his sentence was not based
exclusively on a statutory mandatory minimum. He asserts that Amendment 750
to the sentencing guidelines, which revised the drug quantity tables, lowered his
applicable guidelines range, making him eligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief.
We agree that Amendment 750 lowered Hargrove’s applicable guidelines
range. The Sentencing Commission defines “applicable guideline range” as “the
guideline range that corresponds to the offense level and criminal history category
determined pursuant to § 1B1.1(a), which is determined before consideration of
3
Case: 12-13231 Date Filed: 10/15/2013 Page: 4 of 5
any departure provision in the Guidelines Manual or any variance.” U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10, cmt. (n. 1(A)). Hargrove’s “applicable guideline range” before
Amendment 750 was, therefore, 120 to 125 months’ imprisonment.1 The low-end
of that range, 120 months, was based on the statutory mandatory minimum, but the
rest, up to 125 months, was derived from the drug quantity tables.
After Amendment 750, Hargrove’s initial guidelines range would be 70 to
87 months’ imprisonment. But because Hargrove remains subject to a 120-month
statutory mandatory minimum sentence,2 his final guidelines range would be
simply 120 months’ imprisonment. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii) (2009);
U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(b). Amendment 750, therefore, “lower[ed] [Hargrove’s]
applicable guideline range” by reducing the high-end from 125 to 120 months. See
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, cmt. (n. 1(A)); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Although we
express no view on whether Hargrove should receive a sentence reduction, the
district court erroneously concluded that it lacked the authority to reduce his
sentence under § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Liberse, 688 F.3d 1198, 1202-03
1
Hargrove’s § 4A1.3 departure is not included in his “applicable guideline range” for purposes
of § 3582(c)(2). In Amendment 759, the Sentencing Commission made explicit that § 4A1.3
departures are not part of the “applicable guideline range.” See U.S.S.G. Amend. 759, app. C,
Vol. III, at 421; see also United States v. Hippolyte, 712 F.3d 535, 541 (11th Cir.), petition for
cert. filed, (U.S. June 12, 2013) (No. 12-10828).
2
Hargrove argues that he is no longer subject to the 120-month mandatory minimum as a result
of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA), Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372 (2010). But the
FSA applies only to defendants sentenced after August 3, 2010, the date it took effect. United
States v. Berry, 701 F.3d 374, 377-78 (11th Cir. 2012). Because Hargrove was sentenced on
June 29, 2010, the FSA does not apply to him.
4
Case: 12-13231 Date Filed: 10/15/2013 Page: 5 of 5
(11th Cir. 2012). We accordingly vacate the denial of Hargrove’s motion and
remand to permit the district court to decide the motion on the merits.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
5