United States v. Addison

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-7513
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JERBLONSKI LEON ADDISON, a/k/a Blonski,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:05-cr-00464-CMC-2)
Submitted: March 30, 2009 Decided: April 22, 2009
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Herbert W. Louthian, Sr., LOUTHIAN LAW FIRM, P.A., Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States
Attorney, Robert F. Daley, Jr., Jane Taylor, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerblonski Leon Addison appeals a district court order
and amended judgment in a criminal case denying his motion for a
sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) based on
Amendments 706 and 711 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.
Addison pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute and to distribute five kilograms or more of
cocaine and fifty grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A); 846 (2006). Based on a total
offense level of forty-one and a criminal history category of
VI, his resulting Guidelines range of imprisonment was 360
months to life. However, because he had two prior felony drug
convictions, his statutory mandatory minimum sentence was life,
which became his Guideline sentence. At sentencing, based on
the Government’s motion for a downward departure under U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e)
(2006), the district court departed downward and sentenced
Addison to 292 months’ imprisonment. The court subsequently
denied Addison’s motion for a sentence reduction under
§ 3582(c), finding the statutory mandatory minimum sentence was
not affected by the Guidelines amendments. The court noted
Addison was not eligible for the reduction because he was
subjected to a statutory mandatory minimum sentence from which
the court previously departed based on his substantial
2
assistance. The court did grant the Government’s Fed. R. Crim.
P. 35 motion and resentenced Addison to 210 months’
imprisonment.
The legal interpretations of the Sentencing Guidelines
and the amendments are reviewed de novo. Factual findings are
reviewed for clear error. See United States v. Turner, 59 F.3d
481, 483-84 (4th Cir. 1995). We review the denial of a motion
for a reduction in the sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th
Cir. 2004).
We find the district court properly found it was
without authority to modify Addison’s sentence pursuant to
Amendments 706 and 711 of the Sentencing Guidelines. See United
States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226, 233-36 (4th Cir. 2009). In Hood,
the court held that Amendment 706 did not lower the statutory
mandatory minimum sentence and did not have the effect of
lowering Hood’s Guidelines range of imprisonment. Hood, 556
F.3d at 235-36. Likewise, because Addison’s sentence was not
based on a sentencing range authorized by U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1, which Amendments 706 and 711 amended,
it was not available for a modification under § 3582(c). See
Hood, 556 F.3d at 233.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order and
amended judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the
3
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4