United States v. Eric Lamont White

Opinions of the United
2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
4-23-2009
USA v. Eric Lamont White
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-3570
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Eric Lamont White" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1484.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1484
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 08-3570
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ERIC LAMONT WHITE,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
District Court No. 2-05-cr-00232-001
District Judge: The Honorable John R. Padova
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
April 14, 2009
Before: McKEE, SMITH, Circuit Judges
and STEARNS, District Judge *
(Filed: April 23, 2009)
OPINION
STEARNS, District Judge.
Defendant Eric White appeals the District Court’s Order denying a motion to reduce
his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The motion is based on a recent amendment
*
The Honorable Richard G. Stearns, District Judge for the United States District Court
for Massachusetts, sitting by designation.
to the United States Sentencing Guidelines retroactively authorizing a two-level reduction
of the base offense score for offenses involving cocaine base (crack cocaine). White, who
pled guilty to the distribution of 50 grams or more of crack cocaine, was sentenced as a
career offender by the District Court to 120 months imprisonment. Because Amendment 706
does not affect the applicable sentencing range for a career offender, we will affirm.1
I.
The facts, as related in the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR), can be
summarized as follows. In June of 2004, a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
confidential informant purchased 80 grams of crack cocaine from White for $2,900. On
April 20, 2005, White was indicted for distributing in excess of 50 grams of crack cocaine,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). White pled guilty pursuant to a cooperation agreement
with the government. Prior to White’s plea, the government filed a prior convictions notice
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851, which had the effect of increasing the mandatory minimum
sentence applicable in White’s case to life imprisonment. In the plea agreement, White
stipulated to the sale of the 80 grams of crack cocaine, that he was a career offender as
defined by U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, and that his base offense level as a result was 37. The plea
agreement also specified that White was entitled to a three-level reduction for acceptance of
1
Amendment 706, which took effect on November 1, has the general effect of
“decreas[ing] by two levels the [crack cocaine] base offense levels.” United States v. Wise,
515 F.3d 207, 219 (3d Cir. 2008). On December 11, 2007, the Sentencing Commission
added Amendment 706 to the list of amendments set out in U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(c) that may
be applied retroactively (effective March 3, 2008).
2
responsibility.2
At the sentencing hearing, the District Court found that White’s adjusted offense level
was 34, and given a Criminal History Category of VI, his Guidelines range was 262 to 327
months. However, as the court noted, the Guidelines range was “trumped” by the mandatory
minimum term of life imprisonment. Prior to the hearing, the government moved for a
substantial assistance departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, and for relief from the
mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e). At the hearing, both
government counsel and White’s lawyer stressed White’s significant and “tireless”
cooperation with the government. White’s counsel noted that without the career offender
enhancement, White’s total offense level would have been 29 and his Criminal History
Category III, resulting in a Guidelines sentencing range of 108 to 135 months.
The District Court granted the motion for a downward departure. In imposing
sentence, the court observed that while no longer facing a mandatory life sentence, White
nonetheless was a “constant offender.” The Court determined that White’s cooperation
merited a downward departure of seven to nine levels, noting that an eight-level departure
resulted in level 34/category VI with a Guidelines sentencing range of 120 to 150 months.
The Court imposed a sentence of 120 months, roughly at the mid-point of the recommended
2
The Probation Office determined that the base offense level without the career
offender enhancement was 32. Because White qualified as a career offender, by operation
of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, his criminal history category was elevated to level VI.
3
Guidelines range.3
On June 23, 2008, White filed the instant motion for reduction of sentence. White
argued that he was eligible for the reduction because his sentence “was based on a sentencing
range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” The government
opposed the motion, arguing that White was not eligible for a reduction because his
Guidelines range was anchored to the mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment,
and/or the career offender provision, and was therefore not governed by the crack cocaine
guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. On August 13, 2008, the District Court denied White’s motion,
observing that White’s sentence was not “based on a sentencing range that has been
subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission.”
II.
This Court reviews the District Court’s denial of White’s motion for a sentence
reduction for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Wood, 526 F.3d 82, 85 (3d Cir. 2008).
On appeal, White repeats the argument that he made to the District Court, that section
3582(c)(2) permits a reduction in sentence where the sentence imposed “was based on a
sentence range that has subsequently been lowered.” White maintained that at his original
sentencing, the Court
3
At sentencing, the District Judge stated that “the sentencing guidelines, based on the
rationale, and for the reasons that I’ve given, do reflect the range in which you should be
sentenced, and I have therefore determined to sentence you to 120 months, which is around
the middle of the 29, III, range, and at the same time, represents the bottom of the range, if
we downwardly depart under the sentencing guidelines, for the extensive cooperation by
eight levels.”
4
not only discussed [his] original § 2D1.1 range before imposing a sentence
squarely within that range, it limited the extent of the downward departure
granted to Mr. White so that his ultimate sentence would fall within the now-
lowered § 2D1.1 range. Mr. White’s original sentence was , therefore, “based
on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered.”
After the parties’ briefing of the appeal, this Court “joined many of our sister circuits”
in holding that Amendment 706 “provides no benefit to career offenders.” See United States
v. Mateo, ___ F.3d ___, 2009 WL 750411 *3 (3d Cir. March 24, 2009), citing as in accord
United States v. Forman, 553 F.3d 585, 589-590 (7th Cir. 2009) (per curiam); United States
v. Ayala-Pizarro, 551 F.3d 84, 85 (1st Cir. 2008); United States v. Sharkey, 543 F.3d 1236,
1239 (10th Cir. 2008); United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1327-1328 (11th Cir. 2008);
United States v. Thomas, 524 F.3d 889, 890 (8th Cir. 2008). Like White, Mateo argued that
his sentence was “‘based on’ the base offense level of § 2D1.1(c) because the District Court
consulted that section in calculating his offense level.” Id.
However, Mateo ignores the words that follow “based on” in the statute
authorizing modification of sentence: the defendant must have been sentenced
“based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the
Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (emphasis added). This
language is clear and unambiguous: “[t]he term ‘sentencing range’ clearly
contemplates the end result of the overall guideline calculus, not the series of
tentative results reached at various interim steps in the performance of that
calculus.” United States v. Caraballo, 552 F.3d 6, 10 (1st Cir. 2008).
Therefore, pursuant to the statute, “if an amended guideline does not have the
effect of lowering the sentencing range actually used at sentencing, the
defendant’s sentence was not based on that range within the intendment of the
statute.” Id. Amendment 706 only affects calculation under § 2D 1.1(c), and
the lowering of the base offense level under § 2D 1.1(c) has no effect on the
application of the career offender offense level required by § 4B1.1. . . . “[T]o
say that the defendant’s sentence was ‘based on’ the crack cocaine guideline
strains credulity.” Caraballo, 552 F.3d at 10.
Id. at 2.
5
Based upon our reasoning in Mateo, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
6