United States v. Patrick Leaks

Case: 20-10021 Date Filed: 09/01/2020 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-10021
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:11-cr-00028-JDW-AAS-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
PATRICK LEAKS,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(September 1, 2020)
Before: WILSON, MARTIN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Patrick Leaks, a prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the denial of his second
motion for reconsideration of the district court order denying his motion for a
reduction of sentence. The government moved for summary affirmance and
Case: 20-10021 Date Filed: 09/01/2020 Page: 2 of 8
sought to stay the briefing schedule. After careful review, we grant the
government’s motion and affirm the district court.
I.
In 2011, a jury convicted Leaks of one count of possessing a firearm as a
convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (“Count 1”); one count of
knowingly possessing a substance or mixture containing cocaine, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (“Count 2”); and one count of knowingly possessing a firearm
in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)
(“Count 3”).
The presentence investigation report (“PSR”) grouped Counts 1 and 2 and
assigned a base offense level of 24 under United States Sentencing Guidelines
§ 2K2.1(A)(2), based on Leaks’s two prior convictions for felony fleeing and
eluding. The PSR determined that Leaks was a career offender under Guidelines
§ 4B1.1 because he had at least two prior felony convictions that were crimes of
violence or controlled substance offenses. His prior convictions include one for
felony aggravated assault and two for felony fleeing and eluding. And, based on
these same three prior convictions, the PSR also designated Leaks as an armed
career criminal under Guidelines § 4B1.4 because he was convicted of violating §
922(g) and had at least three prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug
offenses.
2
Case: 20-10021 Date Filed: 09/01/2020 Page: 3 of 8
The PSR calculated Leaks’s final offense level as 34. Because Leaks
possessed a firearm in connection with a controlled substance offense, the PSR
assigned Leaks a criminal history category of VI under Guidelines § 4B1.4(c).
This resulted in a guideline range of 262- to 327-months imprisonment. But
because Leaks was classified as a career offender, the PSR set his guideline range
as 360-months to life imprisonment, which included a consecutive 60-month
sentence for Count 3.
At sentencing, Leaks objected to the PSR’s reliance on his convictions for
felony fleeing and eluding in classifying him as a career offender and an armed
career criminal. He also argued that the government failed to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that he had a prior conviction for aggravated
assault. The district court overruled Leaks’s objections and adopted the PSR’s
guidelines calculations. It found that Leaks was properly classified as a career
offender and an armed career offender. It sentenced Leaks to a term of 300 months
as to Counts 1 and 2, to run concurrently; 60 months as to Count 3, to run
consecutively to Counts 1 and 2; and a total of 6 years supervised release.
Leaks appealed his convictions and sentence and a panel of this Court
affirmed. United States v. Leaks, 518 F. App’x 860, 863 (11th Cir. 2013) (per
curiam) (unpublished). As relevant here, the panel held that Leaks’s two
convictions for felony fleeing and eluding qualified as violent felonies under the
3
Case: 20-10021 Date Filed: 09/01/2020 Page: 4 of 8
Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”). Id. at 862. For this reason the district
court did not err in classifying Leaks as an armed career criminal and imposing a
sentencing enhancement under Guidelines § 4B1.4. Id. The panel also rejected
Leaks’s argument that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. Id. at 863.
In 2014, Leaks filed a motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c), based on a post-sentencing amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines.
Amendment 782 amended the Guidelines by altering the base offense levels for
drug quantities listed in Guidelines § 2D1.1. See USSG App. C, Amend. 782
(2014). The district court denied Leaks’s motion. It reasoned that, because Leaks
was sentenced as an armed career offender under § 4B1.4, and not under § 2D1.1,
Amendment 782 did not change his guidelines range. This meant he was not
eligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).
Leaks moved for reconsideration. He argued that, in his separate
proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the government conceded that he was no
longer an armed career criminal after Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. ___, 135
S. Ct. 2551 (2015). He claimed this made him eligible for a sentence reduction
based on Amendment 782.
The district court granted Leaks’s motion and ordered the probation office to
update Leaks’s PSR. After considering the updated PSR, the district court found
Leaks ineligible for sentence reduction. Even though Leaks no longer qualified as
4
Case: 20-10021 Date Filed: 09/01/2020 Page: 5 of 8
an armed career criminal under § 4B1.4, he remained a career offender under §
4B1.1(a), which meant that his Guidelines range remained the same as at his
original sentencing.
Leaks filed a second motion for reconsideration. He argued that he also did
not qualify as career offender under § 4B1.1 because his convictions for fleeing
and eluding were not crimes of violence under § 4B1.2(a)(2). The district court
denied the motion. It held that Leaks’s argument was foreclosed by United States
v. Orisnord, 483 F.3d 1169 (11th Cir. 2007), in which a panel of this Court held
that fleeing and eluding constitutes a crime of violence for purposes of the career-
offender enhancement under § 4B1.2. Id. at 1183. Because Leaks’s guideline
range was based on his classification as a career offender, the district court again
found him ineligible for a sentence reduction. Leaks timely appealed.
II.
We review de novo the scope of a district court’s authority to modify a
sentence under § 3582(c). United States v. Anderson, 772 F.3d 662, 666 (11th Cir.
2014). We review for abuse of discretion the decision to grant or deny a sentence
reduction under § 3582(c). United States v. Caraballo-Martinez, 866 F.3d 1233,
1238 (11th Cir. 2017).
Summary affirmance is appropriate where “the position of one of the parties
is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to
5
Case: 20-10021 Date Filed: 09/01/2020 Page: 6 of 8
the outcome of the case.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162
(5th Cir. 1969).1
III.
In his opening brief, Leaks argued that the district court erred in classifying
him as a career offender based on his convictions for fleeing and eluding. The
government then filed a motion for summary affirmance and asked to stay the
briefing schedule. After careful review, we conclude that Leaks is not entitled to a
sentence reduction and summary affirmance is warranted.
A district court may reduce a defendant’s sentence if the term of
imprisonment was based on a sentencing range subsequently lowered by the
Sentencing Commission. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). To do so, the district court
must recalculate the sentence under the amended guidelines and determine what
sentence it would have imposed under the amended guideline range. United States
v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780 (11th Cir. 2000). Then the district court must “decide
whether, in its discretion, it will elect to impose the newly calculated
sentence . . . or retain the original sentence.” Id. at 781. Section 3582(c) does not
grant the court jurisdiction to consider “extraneous resentencing issues.” Id. at
782. So, in calculating a sentencing adjustment pursuant to § 3582(c), “all original
1
In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), we adopted as
binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down before October 1, 1981.
Id. at 1209.
6
 Case: 20-10021 Date Filed: 09/01/2020 Page: 7 of 8
sentencing determinations remain unchanged with the sole exception of the
guideline range that has been amended since the original sentencing.” Id. at 781
(emphasis omitted). A district court cannot reduce a defendant’s sentence under
§ 3582(c)(2) below the amended guideline range unless the defendant was granted
a sentence reduction for providing substantial assistance at his original sentencing.
See USSG § 1B1.10(b)(2); United States v. Colon, 707 F.3d 1255, 1259 (11th Cir.
2013).
Here, Amendment 782 made no changes to Leaks’s guideline range. He was
not, therefore, entitled to relief under § 3582(c)(2). Amendment 782 altered
§ 2D1.1(c) of the Guidelines to lower the base offense levels applicable to certain
drug offenses. See USSG App. C, Amend. 782. But, as the district court correctly
held, Leaks was sentenced as a career offender, so his guideline range was set by
§ 4B1.1(b), which Amendment 782 did not alter. The district court therefore
lacked authority to adjust Leaks’s sentence under § 3528(c)(2). See United States
v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1328 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding that defendants sentenced
as career offenders were ineligible for sentence adjustment based on an adjustment
to the Sentencing Guidelines that lowered their base offense levels but did not
affect their higher career offender guidelines range).
Leaks argues that he does not qualify as a career offender because his prior
convictions for fleeing and eluding do not qualify as crimes of violence. But the
7
Case: 20-10021 Date Filed: 09/01/2020 Page: 8 of 8
district court lacked authority to resentence him based on this argument, since in
§ 3582(c) proceedings “all original sentencing determinations remain unchanged
with the sole exception of the guideline range that has been amended since the
original sentencing.” Bravo, 203 F.3d at 781. And even if the district court could
consider this question in a § 3582(c) resentencing, it correctly determined that
Leaks’s argument was foreclosed by Orisnord, which held that a conviction for
fleeing and eluding constitutes a crime of violence for purposes of the career-
offender enhancement. 483 F.3d at 1183.
We therefore conclude there is no substantial question as to whether the
district court erred in denying Leaks’s motion for reconsideration. The
government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. The government’s
motion to stay the briefing schedule is DENIED as moot.
AFFIRMED.
8