United States v. Robert Johnson ( 2009 )

Opinions of the United
2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-26-2009
USA v. Robert Johnson
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-2958
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Robert Johnson" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1676.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1676
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 08-2958
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ROBERT JOHNSON,
Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal Action No. 3-05-cr-00409-1)
District Judges: Honorable Thomas I. Vanaskie
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 26, 2009
Before: RENDELL, AMBRO, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 26, 2009)
OPINION
AMBRO, Circuit Judge
Robert Johnson pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with the intent to
distribute crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. In April 2007, the
District Court sentenced him to 54 months’ imprisonment. In 2008, he filed a motion
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (“Modification of an imposed term of imprisonment”)
to reduce his sentence in light of Amendment 706 to the U.S. Sentencing Commission
Guidelines (the “crack amendment,” effective November 2007). The crack amendment
applies retroactively and generally reduces base offense levels in crack cocaine cases by
two levels. See generally United States v. Wise, 515 F.3d 207, 221 (3d Cir. 2008)
(discussing that the crack amendment became retroactive on March 3, 2008). The
District Court denied the motion. Thereafter, Johnson lodged this appeal.1 He argues that
the District Court erred by improperly treating Guidelines § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) as
mandatory, rather than as advisory, in denying his motion.
We review de novo a district court’s interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines.
United States v. Wood, 526 F.3d 82, 85 (3d Cir. 2008). We have not explicitly set forth
the applicable standard of review of a district court’s decision to grant or deny a sentence
modification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), but other courts that have considered
this issue apply an abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Sharkey, 543 F.3d 1236,
1238 (10th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Dorrough, 84 F.3d 1309, 1311 (10th Cir.
1996)); United States v. Jones, 548 F.3d 1366, 1368 n.1 (11th Cir. 2008). We will apply
the same standard here.
A district court may modify an imposed prison term “in the case of a defendant
who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has
1
The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3231 and 3582. We have
appellate jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
2
subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). A
court “may” make this modification “after considering the factors set forth in section
[18 U.S.C. §] 3553(a) to the extent they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent
with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission” under
Guidelines § 1B1.10. Id. Guidelines § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) reads:
If the original term of imprisonment imposed was less than the term of
imprisonment provided by the guideline range . . . at the time of sentencing,
a reduction comparably less than the amended guideline range . . . may be
appropriate. However, if the original term of imprisonment constituted a
non-guideline sentence determined pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a further reduction generally
would not be appropriate.
(Emphasis added.)
Johnson’s initial recommended Guidelines range was 108 to 135 months’
imprisonment. The Court sentenced him to a non-Guidelines sentence of 54 months’
imprisonment, far below the recommended range, based on the Government’s formal
motion for downward departure for cooperation and the applicable § 3553(a) sentencing
factors. After adoption of the crack amendment, Johnson’s revised Guidelines range,
prior to any departure, was 87 to 108 months’ imprisonment. This lower range resulted
from a two-level change in Johnson’s base offense level, from 29 to 27.
In denying Johnson’s motion for a reduction in sentence, the District Court did not
indicate that it was prohibited from further reducing Johnson’s sentence. Rather, it noted
that a further reduction “generally would not be appropriate” under the Guidelines policy
set forth in § 1B1.10. It continued, stating:
3
In imposing the sentence [of 54 months’ imprisonment,] I considered all the
pertinent factors to determine a sentence that was not greater than necessary
to achieve the objectives of the sentencing statute. The revision of the
guideline range does not alter the conclusion that the sentence of 54 months
is reasonable considering all the circumstances.[ 2]
Given the District Court’s statements regarding the appropriateness of Johnson’s
sentence, we do not believe the Court improperly treated Guidelines § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) as
mandating a specific result, nor did it abuse its discretion in denying Johnson’s motion to
reduce his sentence further, which, in any event, remained well below the revised
Guidelines range.
2
At Johnson’s sentencing hearing, the District Judge took great care to balance the
applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors before arriving at his sentence. The
Court specifically noted that, in determining an appropriate sentence, it could not
overlook the seriousness of the offense, particularly because a firearm was involved.
Nonetheless, the Court granted Johnson “a significant departure,” and over two years
“below the range that had been asked for by the Government.”
4