United States v. McCalister

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
September 17, 2008
TENTH CIRCUIT
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Nos. 08-5081
Plaintiff - Appellee, 08-5097
v. (N.D. Oklahoma)
MICHAEL McCALISTER, (D.C. No. CR-06-114-1-R and CR-07-
23-1-R)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before PORFILIO, ANDERSON, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination
of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10 th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
On May 27, 1999, a second superceding indictment charged defendant and
appellant, Michael L. McCalister, and others with conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute and to distribute various controlled substances, in violation of
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the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.
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 846, and 851(a)(1). A jury found McCalister
guilty, and he was sentenced to 290 months’ imprisonment.
In February 2008, McCalister, proceeding pro se, filed an original and an
amended motion for reduction of his sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).
The district court denied both motions. McCalister thereafter filed a motion for
reconsideration of the denial of his § 3582 motion, which the district court also
denied. In appeal number 08-5081, McCalister appeals the district court’s first
denial. In appeal number 08-5097, McCalister appeals the district court’s refusal
to reconsider its earlier denial. In response to a letter from McCalister which our
court construed as a motion to consolidate, we have consolidated the two appeals.
We affirm.
The original conspiracy of which McCalister was found guilty involved
possession with intent to distribute and the distribution of cocaine, cocaine base,
methamphetamine, marijuana and heroin, as well as the use of communications
facilities in connection with the drug offenses. Prior to trial, the government
informed McCalister that it intended to seek enhancement of his sentence based
on his three prior felony convictions, including prior felony convictions for armed
robbery, robbery with a firearm, shooting with intent to kill and possession of
drugs in a penal institution.
Following the jury’s finding of guilt, and in preparation for sentencing
under the United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (“USSG”),
-2-
the United States Probation Office prepared a presentence report (“PSR”). The
PSR described McCalister’s involvement in the conspiracy as follows:
McCalister’s involvement in the conspiracy consisted of delivering
controlled substances and collecting drug proceeds for [co-
conspirators]. Over the life of the conspiracy McCalister possessed,
delivered and distributed in excess of 454.5 grams of cocaine, 28.35
grams of heroin, 498.5 grams of methamphetamine and 2.7 kilograms
of marijuana. This is a conservative approximation based upon
arrest[s], controlled buys, confidential sources and investigating
agents . . .
PSR at ¶ 35, R. Vol. 2. Using the 1998 version of the Guidelines, the PSR
calculated that the total quantity of drugs attributable to McCalister was the
equivalent of 1,119 kilograms, which, pursuant to USSG §2D1.1, provided for a
base offense level of 32.
However, because McCalister was over eighteen years old at the time of the
offense, the offense of conviction was a controlled substance offense, and because
he had two prior felony convictions for crimes of violence and/or controlled
substance violations, he was classified as a career offender under USSG §4B1.1.
Pursuant to USSG §4B1.1, McCalister’s base offense level was increased to 37,
because the statutory maximum sentence for his offense of conviction (violation
of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) and 851(a)(1)) was life in prison. After a
three level decrease for acceptance of responsibility, McCalister’s total adjusted
offense level was 34. With a criminal history category of VI, the Guideline
sentencing range was 262 to 327 months.
-3-
At sentencing, the district court accepted the PSR’s calculation of
McCalister’s sentence and sentenced him to 290 months. McCalister made no
objection to the PSR. Our court affirmed McCalister’s conviction and sentence
on direct appeal. United States v. Busby, 16 Fed. Appx. 817 (10 th Cir. 2001)
(unpublished). We also affirmed the denial of his petition for habeas relief.
United States v. McCalister, 165 Fed. Appx. 599 (10 th Cir. 2006) (unpublished).
On February 13, 2008, McCalister filed his pro se motion for a reduction of
his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). On May 5, 2008, he filed an
amended motion to reduce his sentence under § 3582. He sought a sentence
reduction on the ground that the district court erred in failing to apply
Amendment 591 of the Guidelines in calculating McCalister’s sentence. As the
district court observed, Amendment 591, which is retroactive, revised two
sections of the Guidelines: USSG §1B1.2 “to clarify that the sentencing court
must apply the offense guideline referenced in the Statutory Index for the statute
of conviction, without regard to relevant conduct”; and USSG §2D1.2, which
addressed a circuit conflict and clarified that the enhanced penalties of §2D1.2
apply only in a case in which the defendant was convicted of an offense
specifically referenced in that guideline. Order at 2-3. The district court further
explained that there are two reasons why Amendment 591 has no relevance to this
case and its application would not have resulted in a shorter sentence for
McCalister: (1) in imposing the sentence, the district court used the Statutory
-4-
Index in determining the applicable offense guideline, as Amendment 591
requires; and (2) McCalister’s guideline range had been determined based upon
USSG §2D1.1, not §2D1.2 (which Amendment 591 modified).
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), a court may modify a sentence if “a
sentencing range . . . has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o).” We review for an abuse of discretion
a district court’s decision to deny a reduction in sentence under § 3582(c)(2).
United States v. Dorrough, 84 F.3d 1309, 1311 (10 th Cir. 1996). We review de
novo a district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines and other legal issues.
United States v. Smartt, 129 F.3d 539, 540 (10 th Cir. 1997).
The two orders by the district court, denying McCalister’s motions for
reduction of sentence, clearly and explicitly explain why Amendment 591
provides no relief for McCalister, and does not entitle him to a reduction in
sentence. Moreover, as the government points out, McCalister’s career offender
status led to the particular offense level he received, which, in turn, determined
his sentencing range. Amendment 591 has no bearing on the career offender
provisions.
We have carefully reviewed the parties’ briefs, the record, the various
sentencing decisions, and the district court’s orders on the present issue. For
substantially the same reasons as laid out by the district court in its two orders,
-5-
we AFFIRM the denial of the motion for reduction of sentence. McCalister’s
motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, however, is GRANTED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
-6-