United States v. Bernard Jiles

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-15792 APRIL 1, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 95-00237-CR-D-S
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BERNARD JILES,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
_________________________
(April 1, 2009)
Before BIRCH, DUBINA and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Bernard Jiles, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his
sentence based on Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Previously, Jiles
was found guilty of: (1) possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); (2) use of a firearm in a drug trafficking crime,
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1); and (3) two counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
“We review a district court's decision whether to reduce a sentence pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on a subsequent change in the sentencing
guidelines, for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Brown, 332 F.3d 1341, 1343
(11th Cir.2003).
Amendment 706 allows courts to modify a term of imprisonment, under 18
§ 3582(c)(2), for offenses involving crack cocaine, by reducing the offense level
by two levels. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c); see also United States v. Moore, 541
F.3d 1323, 1325 (11th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, ___ S. Ct. ___, ___ U.S. Mar. 09,
2009) (No. 08-8558). However, if the original sentence was ultimately based on
something other than the drug quantity, Amendment 706 may not have had an
effect on the sentencing range and, if so, the defendant will not be eligible to be
considered for a sentence reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B).
Once eligibility is established, in deciding whether to reduce a defendant’s
sentence under § 3582(c)(2), the district court first must determine what sentence it
2
would have imposed, had the amended guideline range been in effect at the time of
sentencing; and then, in light of this finding, it must consider the § 3553(a) factors
to determine whether or not to reduce the defendant’s original sentence. United
States v. Vautier, 144 F.3d 756, 760 (11th Cir. 1998). Although this two- step
analysis is required, a court is not required to reduce the defendant's sentence. Id.Here, we conclude from the record that the district court did not err in
denying Jiles’s request for a sentence reduction. First, Jiles’s sentence for the use
of a firearm in a drug trafficking crime resulted from the statutory mandatory
minimum term in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), not any guideline provision. Second, his
convictions for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon were not affected by
Amendment 706. Finally, the decision to group his conviction for possession of
cocaine base with his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon
meant that the base offense level was determined by his possession of a firearm,
and not his possession of crack cocaine. Therefore, Amendment 706 did not have
the effect of lowering Jiles’s offense level and, consequently, the district court did
not have authority to reduce his sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s order denying the motion to reduce sentence.
AFFIRMED.
3