United States v. Davis ( 2006 )

Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
11-8-2006
USA v. Davis
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-2154
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Davis" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 217.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/217
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 2006 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 06-2154
________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
BRIAN DAVIS,
Appellant
________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Crim. No. 97-cr-00359-4)
District Judge: Honorable J. Curtis Joyner
________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
August 16, 2006
Before: RENDELL, AMBRO and ROTH, Circuit Judges
(Filed: November 8, 2006)
________________
OPINION
________________
PER CURIAM
Brian Davis appeals the District Court’s order denying his motion for sentencing
relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). As explained below, we will affirm.1
I
In 1998 a jury found Davis guilty of participation in a racketeering conspiracy (18
U.S.C. § 1962(d); Count I) and two counts of conspiracy to commit murder in furtherance
of racketeering activity (18 U.S.C. § 1959; Counts 9 and 10). Because his guidelines
range (life imprisonment) exceeded the statutory maximum, he received the statutory
maximum sentences instead: twenty years for Count I and ten years each for Counts 9 and
10, all consecutive to each other. (Davis subsequently pled guilty to a methamphetamine
conspiracy and, as part of the agreement, dropped the pending appeal with regard to his
racketeering convictions and agreed to forego attempts at collateral relief under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Davis’s subsequent pro se appeal and section 2255
motion were dismissed accordingly.)
In 2006 Davis filed a motion under section 3582(c)(2), arguing that retroactive
application of Amendment 591 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines requires a
reduction in his sentence. At issue is his sentence for Count 10. The Court proceeded
from USSG § 2E1.1 (Unlawful Conduct Relating to Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations), whose Application Note 2 provides that “[i]f the underlying conduct
violates state law, the offense level corresponding to the most analogous federal offense is
to be used.” The District Court determined that the most analogous offense was federal
1
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review is plenary. United States
v. McKoy, 452 F.3d 234, 236 (3d Cir. 2006).
2
first degree murder, 18 U.S.C. § 1111, resulting in the application of USSG § 2A1.1 and a
base offense level of 43.
Amendment 591, effective November 1, 2000, requires that the initial selection of
the offense guideline be based on the statute or offense of conviction rather than on
judicial findings of actual conduct not made by the jury. Davis argues that under
Amendment 591, the starting point under the Guidelines should have been § 2E1.3
(Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Activity), which instructs that the base offense
level is the greater of 12 or the offense level applicable to the underlying crime or
racketeering activity. As with § 2E1.1, an Application Note provides that if the
underlying conduct violates state law, the offense level corresponding to the most
analogous federal offense is to be used. According to Davis, that offense is conspiracy to
murder (18 U.S.C. § 1117). The corresponding guideline is § 2A1.5 (conspiracy or
solicitation to commit murder), which would have resulted in a base offense level of 28.
The District Court denied Davis’s motion without explanation. This appeal
followed.
II
Following Davis’s argument leads to the same sentence imposed by the District
Court. As described above, Davis’s guidelines analysis stops when he arrives at USSG §
2A1.5. However, § 2A1.5(c) provides that if the offense resulted in the victim’s death (as
happened here), 2A1.1 (first degree murder) applies, the very result reached by the
District Court.
3
Davis argues that the “cross-referencing” (as he calls it) involved in proceeding
from § 2A1.5 to § 2A1.1 is prohibited by Amendment 591. However, he provides no
support for this contention. While Amendment 591 directs the District Court to apply
“the guidelines dictated by the statute of conviction,” United States v. Moreno, 421 F.3d
1217, 1220 (11th Cir. 2005), it does not permit the court to ignore the specific directions
provided by the guidelines. Indeed, the requirements of Amendment 591 and USSG
§ 2A1.5(c) can coexist in this instance without tension in light of the fact that section
2A1.1 is the ultimate guideline “dictated by the statute of conviction.”
In Davis’s case, applying “the guideline dictated by the statute of conviction”, and
following the directions set forth in the guidelines as explained above, unavoidably leads
to § 2A1.1. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
4