United States v. Anthony Merrick

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 14 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-10338
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
4:01-cr-01240-DCB-CRP-1
v.
ANTHONY JAMES MERRICK, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 10, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: WALLACE, BOGGS,*** and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-Appellant Anthony Merrick appeals from the district court’s order
denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1).
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Danny J. Boggs, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “We review de novo a district court’s
interpretation of a statute.” U.S. v. Lopez, 998 F.3d 431, 434 (9th Cir. 2021). Thus,
although we review “the discretionary denial of a motion to reduce a sentence . . .
for abuse of discretion,” the “legal question [of] whether the pertinent guidelines
amendment was applicable to the defendant’s sentence” is reviewed de novo “[l]ike
all other questions of statutory interpretation . . . and Sentencing Guidelines
interpretation.” U.S. v. Paulk, 569 F.3d 1094, 1094–95 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations
omitted). For the following reasons, we affirm the district court’s order.
Merrick was convicted and sentenced for a federal offense by the district court
in 2002. After serving his federal prison term and while on supervised release,
Merrick committed new state offenses in 2008. He was subsequently tried,
convicted, and sentenced to 35 years’ imprisonment by the Maricopa County
Superior Court in Arizona for those state offenses. While serving his state sentence,
Merrick filed a pro se motion for resentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)
and (c)(1)(B), seeking to modify his term of supervised release. The district court
denied the motion and held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant relief under § 3582(c)
where the term of federal imprisonment has ended because § 3582(c) only authorizes
the court to modify an imposed term of imprisonment.
The district court did not err in its interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 3582 and
determination that § 3582(c) authorizes the court only to modify a term of
2
imprisonment and not a term of supervised release. The plain language of § 3582
shows that the statute does not provide jurisdiction to reduce a term of supervised
release. Section 3582 governs the “[i]mposition of a sentence of imprisonment” and
subsection (c) is titled “[m]odification of an imposed term of imprisonment.” 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c). Although “the word ‘sentence’ encompasses both prison time and
periods of supervised release,” U.S. v. Joyce, 357 F.3d 921, 924 (9th Cir. 2004),
there is a clear distinction between “imprisonment” and “supervised release.” A
term of supervised release is not part of the term of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. §
3624(e) (“The term of supervised release commences on the day the person is
released from imprisonment.”). Moreover, a different section of the federal
sentencing statutes (18 U.S.C. § 3583), not § 3582, governs a “term of supervised
release after imprisonment.” 18 U.S.C. § 3583.
Here, Merrick is not currently serving a federal term of imprisonment. His
motion to reduce sentence under § 3582(c)(1) seeks only to reduce his federal term
of supervised release. Because § 3582(c) does not authorize a court to modify an
imposed term of supervised release, the district court lacks jurisdiction to grant
Merrick’s requested relief under § 3582(c) where the term of federal imprisonment
has already ended.
AFFIRMED.
3