United States v. Tyren Ali ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                                                                    NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    No. 20-3326
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    v.
    TYREN ALI,
    Appellant
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of New Jersey
    (D.C. No. 1:11-cr-00752-001)
    District Judge: Honorable Noel L. Hillman
    Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
    on June 22, 2021
    Before: SMITH, Chief Judge†, MATEY and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    (Opinion filed: May 10, 2022)
    OPINION
    †
    Judge Smith was Chief Judge at the time this appeal was submitted. Judge Smith
    completed his term as Chief Judge and assumed senior status on December 4, 2021.
    
    This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does
    not constitute binding precedent.
    MATEY, Circuit Judge.
    Tyren Ali challenges the District Court’s denial of his motion for a reduced
    sentence. Finding no error, we will affirm.
    I.
    Ali pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent
    to distribute crack cocaine in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 846
    . With six prior felony drug
    convictions, he qualified as a “career offender” under the Sentencing Guidelines, producing
    an advisory sentencing range of 188 to 235 months. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a) The District
    Court sentenced Ali to 204 months of imprisonment with five years of supervised release,
    a decision we affirmed. United States v. Ali, 537 F. App’x 117, 119 (3d Cir. 2013).
    In April 2020, Ali submitted requests for “home confinement” because of the
    COVID-19 pandemic to the warden at his Federal Correctional Institution and the District
    Court. The warden denied the request. Before the District Court responded, Ali filed
    another motion, seeking a sentence reduction under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(2). The District
    Court consolidated the motions and purported to deny them in a single form order titled
    “Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(2). This
    timely appeal followed.
    But we ran into a problem when considering Ali’s appeal: the District Court’s Order
    did not mention the motion for home confinement.‡ So we issued a limited remand in June
    ‡
    A point raised by the Government in a letter to the District Court asking 1) whether
    the District Court provided an oral explanation, and 2) if so, if the explanation could be
    transcribed and placed on the docket. See United States v. Ali, No. 1:11-cr-00752, ECF No.
    68 (D.N.J. Feb. 19, 2021).
    2
    2021 asking the District Court for clarification. Then, in April 2022, Ali moved to
    voluntarily dismiss the home confinement claim. Because his dismissal moots the issue on
    remand, we address Ali’s motion for a sentence reduction.§
    II.
    We review a decision denying a sentencing reduction motion for an abuse of
    discretion. United States v. Mateo, 
    560 F.3d 152
    , 154 & n.2 (3d Cir. 2009). That means
    “we will not disturb the District Court’s decision unless there is a definite and firm
    conviction that it committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a
    weighing of the relevant factors.” United States v. Pawlowski, 
    967 F.3d 327
    , 330 (3d Cir.
    2020) (cleaned up).
    We find no error. A term of incarceration may be reduced if the sentence was
    imposed using a Guidelines range that was “subsequently . . . lowered by the Sentencing
    Commission.” § 3582(c)(2). Ali argues a reduction is justified by Amendment 782 to the
    Guidelines, which “reduced the Guidelines’ base offense levels for certain drug offenses”
    with retroactive application. Koons v. United States, 
    138 S. Ct. 1783
    , 1788 (2018); see also
    U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c); U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 782 (2014). But Amendment 782 did not
    reduce the career offender Guidelines range, and Ali was sentenced within that range. See
    United States v. Martin, 
    867 F.3d 428
    , 431 (3d Cir. 2017). That makes Ali ineligible.
    §
    The District Court had jurisdiction under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c) and we have
    jurisdiction pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    .
    3
    III.
    The District Court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Ali was ineligible
    for a reduced sentence. So we will affirm its order denying relief.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-3326

Filed Date: 5/10/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 5/10/2022