United States v. James Buteau ( 2015 )

Case: 15-11392 Date Filed: 10/26/2015 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-11392
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:11-cr-80130-DTKH-12
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES BUTEAU,
a.k.a. Slaya,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(October 26, 2015)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
Case: 15-11392 Date Filed: 10/26/2015 Page: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
James Buteau, proceeding with the assistance of counsel, appeals the district
court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence based on
Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. No reversible error has been
shown; we affirm.
We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions about the scope of
its authority under section 3582(c)(2). United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317,
1319 (11th Cir. 2012).
A district court may not reduce a defendant’s term of imprisonment unless
(1) the defendant’s sentence was based upon a guideline range that the Sentencing
Commission later lowered and (2) a reduction is consistent with the Sentencing
Commission’s applicable policy statements. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). A reduction
is inconsistent with the guidelines’ policy statements if the guidelines amendment
does not lower the defendant’s “applicable guideline range.” U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). The defendant bears the burden of establishing that a
retroactive amendment actually lowers his guideline range. United States v.
Hamilton, 715 F.3d 328, 337 (11th Cir. 2013).
When determining whether a reduction is warranted, a court should
determine the guidelines range that would have applied had the pertinent
2
Case: 15-11392 Date Filed: 10/26/2015 Page: 3 of 4
amendment been in effect at the time of defendant’s sentencing. U.S.S.G. §
1B1.10(b)(1). In doing so, a court must substitute only the pertinent amendment
into the district court’s original guidelines calculations and leave all other
sentencing decisions unaffected. Id.; United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780
(11th Cir. 2000).
In this case, the sentencing court first calculated Buteau’s base offense level
as 32 under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1), based on the quantity of drugs involved in his
offense. The court then determined that Buteau qualified as a minor participant in
the conspiracy and, thus, was eligible for a reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b).
Buteau’s minor-role-reduction also entitled him to a two-level reduction in his base
offense level under section 2D1.1(a)(5). See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(5) (a defendant
is entitled to a two-level reduction in his base offense level if (a) he receives a
minor role reduction under section 3B1.2 and (b) if his base offense level under
section 2D1.1(c) is 32).
Applying section 2D1.1(a)(5), the sentencing court recalculated Buteau’s
base offense level as 30. The court then applied the two-level minor-role-reduction
under section 3B1.2(b) and a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility
under section 3E1.1, resulting in a total offense level of 25. Based on a total
offense level of 25 and a criminal history category of IV, Buteau’s guideline range
3
Case: 15-11392 Date Filed: 10/26/2015 Page: 4 of 4
was calculated as 84 to 105 months’ imprisonment. The sentencing court imposed
a sentence of 84 months.
The district court committed no error in denying Buteau a sentence reduction
based on Amendment 782. Amendment 782 reduced -- by two -- the base offense
levels for most drug sentences calculated pursuant to the Drug Quantity Table,
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). U.S.S.G. App. C., amend. 782. Applying retroactively
Amendment 782 to Buteau’s case reduces the base offense level specified in
section 2D1.1(c) from 32 to 30. Doing so, however, renders Buteau ineligible for
the additional two-level reduction under section 2D1.1(a)(5), which applies only if
the offense level specified in section 2D1.1(c) is 32 or above. Thus, Buteau’s base
offense level remains 30 after application of Amendment 782.
Leaving the other sentencing decisions unaffected, including application of
the two-level minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 and the three-level
reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, Buteau’s total
offense level is 25. Together with his criminal history category of IV, Buteau’s
resulting guideline range remains 84 to 105 months. Because the retroactive
application of Amendment 782 results in no change to Buteau’s sentencing range,
no sentence reduction is authorized under section 3582(c)(2). See Hamilton, 715
F.3d at 337.
AFFIRMED.
4