United States v. Olds

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS May 28, 2009
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
TENTH CIRCUIT
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 08-3336
v. (D. Kansas)
RASHEED JAMAL OLDS, (D.C. No. 2:95-CR-20086-JWL-1)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HARTZ, EBEL, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
Rasheed Jamal Olds appeals the denial of his motion under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in his sentence. We exercise jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
In 1996 Mr. Olds (who was then known as James Walton) pleaded guilty in
the United States District Court for the District of Kansas to (1) one count of
conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base and (2) one count of conspiracy
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and
collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent
with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
to launder money. See United States v. Walton, 156 F.3d 1245, *1 (10th Cir.
1998) (unpublished table decision). He was sentenced to life imprisonment.
On November 1, 2007, the United States Sentencing Commission adopted
Amendment 706 to its Sentencing Guidelines. See USSG supp. to app. C, amend.
706. The amendment reduces by two levels the base offense level assigned to
most crack-cocaine quantities. See id. After Amendment 706 was made
retroactive, see id. amend. 713 (Mar. 3, 2008), Mr. Olds filed a motion under
§ 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in his sentence. The district court denied the motion,
observing that at Mr. Olds’s original sentencing he had been found responsible
for 6.25 kilograms of crack cocaine, an amount corresponding to a base offense
level of 38 both before and after Amendment 706. Because the amendment did
not lower Mr. Olds’s guideline range, the court concluded that it lacked authority
to conduct resentencing. The court relied on USSG § 1B1.10(a)(2), a Sentencing
Commission policy statement providing that a court is “not authorized” to
resentence a defendant on the basis of a retroactive amendment unless it has the
“effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range.”
On appeal Mr. Olds concedes that Amendment 706 did not lower his
guideline range. He contends, however, that the district court violated his Sixth
Amendment rights by failing to treat § 1B1.10(a)(2) as merely advisory. He
acknowledges that we rejected this argument in United States v. Rhodes, 549 F.3d
833 (10th Cir. 2008), and states that he raises it here only to “preserve his ability
-2-
to benefit from Supreme Court review of [the] question.” Aplt. Br. at 3.
Mr. Olds’s only other contention is that § 1B1.10(a)(2) is the product of an
unconstitutional delegation of Congress’s authority over the jurisdiction of the
federal courts. We rejected this argument in United States v. Dryden,
No. 08-3310, 2009 WL 1153690 (10th Cir. Apr. 30, 2009).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
-3-