United States v. Johnson

Case: 20-30694 Document: 00515995802 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/26/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 26, 2021
No. 20-30694
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Rahsaan Johnson,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:03-CR-135-3
Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Rahsaan Johnson, federal prisoner # 23433-034, pleaded guilty to
three offenses: (1) conspiring to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine
and 50 grams or more of crack cocaine (Count 1); (2) conspiring to commit
money laundering (Count 2); and, (3) carrying and using a firearm during and
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-30694 Document: 00515995802 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/26/2021
No. 20-30694
in relation to a drug trafficking crime to commit murder (Count 3). Although
his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement called for
life sentences on Count 1 and Count 3, the Government filed a memorandum
in which it requested reductions in Johnson’s agreed-on sentences due to his
substantial assistance. Consistent with the Government’s request, the
district court sentenced Johnson to 300-month terms of imprisonment on
Count 1 and Count 3, and to a 240-month term of imprisonment on Count 2,
all to run concurrently.
In the instant matter, Johnson appeals from the denial of his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction. As he did in the district court,
Johnson asserts that he is eligible for a sentence reduction on account of
Amendment 782. He goes on to contend that, because he is eligible, the
district court should have considered various possible methods for
determining the appropriate reduction in his sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10(b)(2)(B), p.s. He also argues that a reduction in sentence is
warranted based on a consideration of the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a).
Generally, we review the district court’s denial of a § 3582(c)(2)
motion for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713,
717 (5th Cir. 2011). However, as relevant here, we review de novo whether a
district court has authority to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2). United
States v. Jones, 596 F.3d 273, 276 (5th Cir. 2010).
Section 3582(c)(2) permits the discretionary modification of a
defendant’s sentence “in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to
a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently
been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. [§]
994(o) . . . if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements
issued by the Sentencing Commission.” § 3582(c)(2). In determining
2
Case: 20-30694 Document: 00515995802 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/26/2021
No. 20-30694
whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2), the district court first
determines whether the defendant is eligible for a sentence modification.
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010). If the district court
determines that a defendant is eligible, it must then consider the applicable
§ 3553(a) factors to decide whether a reduction “is warranted in whole or in
part under the particular circumstances of the case.” Dillon, 560 U.S. at 827.
Here, the record reflects that the probation officer grouped the three
counts of conviction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(c) and determined
Johnson’s base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2A1.1(a), the guideline for
First Degree Murder. Amendment 782, which “lowered only the [U.S.S.G.]
§ 2D1.1 drug quantity guideline range,” United States v. Quintanilla, 868
F.3d 315, 319 (5th Cir. 2017), therefore did not affect Johnson’s guidelines
range. Because § 2D1.1 was not applicable to Johnson, and Amendment 782
did not have the effect of lowering Johnson’s applicable guideline range, a
sentence reduction was not authorized. See Quintanilla, 868 F.3d at 319;
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B), p.s. In view of the foregoing, the district court
did not err in denying the § 3582(c)(2) motion. See Quintanilla, 868 F.3d at
319.
In his reply brief, Johnson argues for the first time that the district
court may have not have understood that it had the authority to sua sponte
reduce his sentence under Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018, and he
urges us to vacate the district court’s order and remand for further
proceedings. We need not address this contention because we do not review
arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief. See United States
v. Ramirez, 557 F.3d 200, 203 (5th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
3