United States v. Braulio Batista

ALD-270 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 12-2107
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
BRAULIO ANTONIO BATISTA,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 2-03-cr-00514-001)
District Judge: Honorable William J. Martini
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal for Jurisdictional Defect or
Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
August 30, 2012
Before: SLOVITER, FISHER and WEIS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: September 6, 2012)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM.
Braulio Antonio Batista pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy to distribute 150
grams or more of cocaine base (“crack cocaine”) (he stipulated in his plea agreement that
462 grams of crack cocaine were involved in his offense, D. Ct. Docket Entry No. 60, p.
1
7, ¶ 3). The District Court, assessing a offense level of 34 for the amount of crack
cocaine involved plus a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice for attempting
to avoid trial by feigning mental illness, sentenced Batista to 188 months in prison. We
affirmed the judgment of sentence. United States v. Batista, 483 F.3d 193 (3d Cir. 2007).
Subsequently, Batista filed a motion for a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) in light of the retroactively applied Amendment 706 to the Sentencing
Guidelines (which lowered the base offense levels for crack cocaine offenses under
§ 2D1.1(c) of the Sentencing Guidelines by two levels). The District Court granted the
motion and reduced Batista’s sentence, amending his offense level from 36 to 34 and
reducing his sentence to 151 months in prison.
In February 2011, Batista returned to the District Court with a pro se motion for
another reduction of sentence under § 3582(c)(2). He cited the Fair Sentencing Act of
2010 (“FSA”), which altered the statutory penalties for crack cocaine offenses, and a
then-pending amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines proposed in response to the FSA.
He asked that the District Court consider his request for a reduction of sentence on the
passage of the proposed amendment. Ultimately, Amendment 750, which applies
retroactively, see United States v. Curet, 670 F.3d 296, 309 (1st Cir. 2012), took effect on
November 1, 2011, and lowered the base offense levels for crack cocaine quantities listed
in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) to conform to the FSA. 1
1
Initially, in response to the FSA, the Sentencing Commission promulgated a temporary
amendment that revised the crack cocaine quantity levels in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1.
2
The District Court denied Batista’s motion on March 13, 2012. Batista filed a
notice of appeal on April 9, 2012, see Houston v. Lock, 487 U.S. 266, 270-71 (1988).
We have jurisdiction over his appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 2 Our review of the
District Court decision to deny Batista’s motion for a sentence reduction under
§ 3582(c)(2) is for abuse of discretion. United States v. Mateo, 560 F.3d 152, 154 (3d
Cir. 2009). On review, we will affirm the District Court’s decision because no
substantial issue is raised on appeal. See L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
Under § 3582(c), a court may reduce a term of imprisonment where a defendant
was sentenced “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the
Sentencing Commission[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); see also Mateo, 560 F.3d at 154.
Accordingly, if Amendment 750 has the effect of lowering a defendant’s guideline range,
a court may reduce the term of imprisonment pursuant to § 3582(c). See U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10(a), (c). However, Amendment 750 did not change Batista’s offense level, so
his sentencing range did not change. As noted above, Batista stipulated in his plea
agreement that 462 grams of crack cocaine were involved in his offense. Under
§ 2D1.1(c), as amended, a crime involving at least 280 grams but less than 840 grams of
Amendment 750 re-promulgated as permanent that temporary amendment. See Dorsey
v. United States, -- U.S. --, 132 S. Ct. 2321, 2329 (2012).
2
Although Batista filed his notice of appeal more than 14 days after the District Court
entered its order denying the § 3582(c)(2) motion, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(b), we may
entertain his appeal because the Government has informed us that it does not wish to
enforce the time limitation. See Virgin Islands v. Martinez, 620 F.3d 321, 328-29 (3d
Cir. 2010).
3
crack cocaine has a base offense level of 32. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(4). Batista’s total
offense level, with the two-level enhancement discussed above, remains at 34, and the
guideline range remains the same as when the District Court reduced his sentence after
his first motion under § 3582(c), see U.S.S.G. Sentencing Table, Ch. 5, Pt. A.
Batista’s argues that he is nonetheless entitled to a reduction in his sentence
because the stipulated amount of crack cocaine did not reflect the true amount of the
controlled substance. According to him, the true amount was lower because the 462
gram mixture was only 52% pure (the crack cocaine had been adulterated with baking
soda). However, his argument is without merit. Under the Sentencing Guidelines,
“[u]nless otherwise specified, the weight of a controlled substance set forth in the table
refers to the entire weight of any mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of
the controlled substance.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(4), Note A. Crack cocaine is not among
those controlled substances otherwise specified. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(4), Note B.
Accordingly, his sentence must be based on the entire amount of the mixture containing
crack cocaine.
For these reasons, there was no basis on which to reduce Batista’s sentence.
Accordingly, the District Court did not err in denying Batista’s motion, and we will
affirm the District Court’s decision.
4