United States v. Jesse Crosby ( 2016 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 15-3715
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JESSE CROSBY,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal Action No. 1:10-cr-00086-001)
District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
July 22, 2016
Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR. and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: August 16, 2016)
___________
OPINION*
___________
PER CURIAM
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
Jesse Crosby, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the District Court’s
order denying his motion requesting a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2). For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.
I.
Crosby pleaded guilty to one count of distribution and possession with intent to
distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. After reviewing the Presentence
Investigation Report (PSR), the District Court determined that Crosby qualified as a
career offender under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Under that designation, Crosby’s
sentencing range was 151 months to 188 months. After considering the arguments of the
parties, Crosby’s allocution, and the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the
District Court determined that a 21-month downward variance was appropriate and
sentenced Crosby to 130 months in prison.
In November 2014, Crosby filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He
sought to have his sentence reduced based on Amendment 782 to the U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines, which lowered by two the base offense assigned to particular drug quantities.
The District Court denied Crosby’s motion, and he appeals.1 In his brief, Crosby claims
1
The order denying Crosby’s motion to reduce or modify his sentence was entered on
October 14, 2015. He had 14 days, or until October 28, 2015, to file a notice of appeal.
See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); United States v. Brown, 817 F.3d 486, 488-89 (6th Cir.
2016). Crosby, however, did not file his notice of appeal until November 3, 2015. See
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). Nevertheless, we decline to dismiss this
appeal as untimely because the time requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
4(b) are not jurisdictional, see Gov’t of the V.I. v. Martinez, 620 F.3d 321, 328-29 (3d
Cir. 2010), and the Government has not sought to dismiss the appeal on that basis.
2
that he was not sentenced based on the career offender guideline. The Government
disputes this claim and argues that Crosby is not entitled to a sentence reduction under
Amendment 782. We agree with the arguments put forward by the Government.
II.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We generally review a district
court’s denial of a motion for reduction of sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Mateo, 560 F.3d 152, 154 (3d Cir. 2009). When a district
court concludes that a defendant is not eligible for relief under § 3582(c)(2), however, our
review is plenary. United States v. Weatherspoon, 696 F.3d 416, 421 (3d Cir. 2012).
III.
A district court generally cannot modify a term of imprisonment once it has been
imposed, but a defendant may be eligible for a reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)
under certain circumstances. Section 3582(c) allows for a reduction if: (1) the sentence
was “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
Commission,” and (2) “a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued
by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); United States v. Flemming,
723 F.3d 407, 410 (3d. Cir. 2013).
Crosby fails to meet either of § 3582(c)(2)’s criteria. First, Crosby’s sentence was
based on the career offender guideline, not a sentencing range that has subsequently been
lowered. Specifically, the District Court varied from the low-end of the guideline range
3
after determining Crosby was a career offender, and Crosby’s argument that he was not
sentenced based on the career offender guideline is belied by the record.
Crosby also fails to meet § 3582(c)(2)’s second criterion, as a reduction in his
sentence would not be “consistent with the applicable policy statements issued by the
Sentencing Commission.” The relevant “applicable policy statement[]” makes clear that
a reduction in a sentence following a retroactive Guidelines amendment is inconsistent
with the Commission’s policy statements unless the amendment has “the effect of
lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B).
Thus, the “question here is whether amendments to the… guidelines… have the effect of
lowering the ‘applicable guideline range’ of a defendant subject to the career offender
designation,” who received a downward departure or variance. Flemming, 723 F.3d at
410.
The Sentencing Guidelines define “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 any departure
provision in the Guidelines Manual or any variance.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A). As
in Flemming, the “applicable guideline range” is “the range calculated pursuant to the
career offender designation of § 4B1.1, and not the range calculated after applying any
departure or variance.” 712 F.3d at 412. The fact that Crosby received a downward
variance from the career offender guideline does not change the applicable range under
which his sentence was calculated. See id.
4
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s order denying
Crosby’s motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
5