United States v. Joseph Anthony Hayes

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
OCT 31, 2008
No. 07-10915 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 94-00032-CR-DTKH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSEPH ANTHONY HAYES,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(October 31, 2008)
Before MARCUS, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Anthony Hayes appeals his sentence of imprisonment for 240 months
imposed after the district court, on remand, reduced Hayes’s original sentence of
imprisonment of 300 months for his drug and possession of weapon crimes. 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Hayes argues that his sentence is unreasonable. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Hayes was convicted in 1995 for conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); possession of firearms in furtherance of
the possession of cocaine, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and possession of an unregistered
firearm, 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). The district court sentenced Hayes to imprisonment
for 300 months for the conspiracy crime, United States Sentencing Guidelines §
2D1.1(b)(1) (Nov. 1987), a concurrent term of 120 months for the unregistered
firearm charge, and a consecutive term of 60 months for the possession of firearms
crime.
In March 2004, Hayes filed a motion to reduce his sentence. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2). The district court denied the motion. On appeal, the government
conceded that Amendment 599 applied to Hayes. This Court reversed and
remanded the case with directions to recalculate Hayes’s sentence under the
amended guidelines and determine whether to reduce Hayes’s sentence. United
States v. Hayes, No. 05-12306 (11th Cir. Oct. 31, 2006).
On remand, the district court ruled that Hayes was entitled to a two-level
2
reduction of his base offense level, which provided a sentencing range between
210 and 262 months of imprisonment. See U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 713 (Supp.
May 1, 2008); id. App. C, Amend. 706 (Nov. 2007). The district court considered
arguments from both parties regarding the sentencing factors and sentenced Hayes
to imprisonment for 240 months for the conspiracy crime, a concurrent term of 120
months for the unregistered firearm charge, and a consecutive term of 60 months
for the possession of firearms crime. The court explained that it considered “the
need to reflect the seriousness of the offense and promote respect for the law and
provide just punishment.”
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
“In a proceeding to modify a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), we
review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions regarding the scope of its
authority under the Sentencing Guidelines.” United States v. White, 305 F.3d
1264, 1267 (11th Cir. 2002) (citing United States v. Pelaez, 196 F.3d 1203, 1205
(11th Cir. 1999)). We review the reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of
discretion. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007).
III. DISCUSSION
A district court may reduce a sentence when the guideline imprisonment
range is lowered and the court concludes, after considering the factors in section
3
3553(a), that a “reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by
the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). This decision requires that
the “district court . . . make two distinct determinations.” United States v. Vautier,
144 F.3d 756, 760 (11th Cir. 1998). The district court must substitute the amended
guideline range and then decide whether to reduce the defendant’s sentence after
considering the sentencing factors of section 3553(a). Id.The district court did not err in reducing Hayes’s sentence. The court
applied the new guideline range of 210 to 262 months, considered the factors of
section 3553(a) and the arguments of Hayes, and explained that a sentence within
the guidelines was necessary to accomplish the goals of punishment and
deterrence. See 28 U.S.C. § 3553(a); Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. Hayes’s sentence is
reasonable.
IV. CONCLUSION
Hayes’s amended sentence is AFFIRMED.
4