USA v. Benjamin Hobb

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Benjamin F Hobbs. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam.

Case: 12-12129

Date Filed: 10/03/2012

Page: 1 of 5

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-12129
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:94-cr-00002-BAE-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BENJAMIN F. HOBBS,
a.k.a. Bennie Hobbs,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(October 3, 2012)
Before HULL, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Benjamin Hobbs appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C.

Case: 12-12129

Date Filed: 10/03/2012

Page: 2 of 5

§ 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his 274-month sentence. Hobbs was convicted in
1994 of conspiring to possess cocaine and cocaine base with intent to distribute,
and was ultimately held responsible for 595.5 grams of cocaine base. Applying
the 1993 Sentencing Guidelines manual, the sentencing court assigned Hobbs a
base offense level of 36 under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(4), and added a 2-offense-level
enhancement for Hobbs’s possession of firearms. After applying a 3-offense-level
reduction for accepting responsibility, the sentencing court calculated a total
offense level of 35, a criminal history category of VI, and a Guidelines range of
292 to 365 months’ imprisonment. Hobbs was a career offender, but the
sentencing court sentenced him under § 2D1.1 because, even given Hobbs’s
statutory maximum sentence of life imprisonment, § 2D1.1 resulted in a higher
offense level than the career offender Guideline. The sentencing court imposed a
292-month sentence of imprisonment.
In 2008, the district court granted Hobbs’s first § 3582(c)(2) motion to
reduce his sentence pursuant to Amendment 706 to the Guidelines. It calculated a
new total offense level of 34 (pursuant to the now higher career offense level), and
a new Guidelines range of 262 to 327 months’ imprisonment. Based on these
calculations, the district court reduced Hobbs’s sentence to 274 months’
imprisonment. Hobbs subsequently filed the instant § 3582(c)(2) motion, which
2

Case: 12-12129

Date Filed: 10/03/2012

Page: 3 of 5

he premised upon Amendment 750. He now argues that the district court erred by
denying his motion after it concluded that Amendment 750 did not alter his
Guidelines range.
We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions regarding the scope
of its authority under § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323,
1326 (11th Cir. 2008). Part A of Amendment 750 amended § 2D1.1 by revising
the Drug Quantity Table in § 2D1.1(c) and reducing the offense levels associated
with various amounts of crack cocaine. U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 750, Pt. A,
cross-referencing U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 748. Amendment 750 became
effective on November 1, 2011. U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 750.
A district court may not reduce a defendant’s term of imprisonment that has
been imposed unless: (1) the defendant’s sentence was based upon a Guidelines
range that the Sentencing Commission subsequently lowered; (2) the district court
considers the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; and (3) a reduction is consistent with
applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2). It may reduce a defendant’s previously imposed sentence of
imprisonment pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) if the relevant amendment is listed in
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c) and the reduction is consistent with the Guidelines’ policy
statement. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1). Parts A and C of Amendment 750 may serve
3

Case: 12-12129

Date Filed: 10/03/2012

Page: 4 of 5

as the basis for a sentence reduction. See id. § 1B1.10(c).
When determining whether a reduction is warranted, a court should
determine the Guidelines range that would have applied had the relevant
amendment been in effect at the time of the defendant’s sentencing. Id.
§ 1B1.10(b)(1). A court must only substitute the relevant amendment into the
district court’s original Guidelines calculations, and leave all other sentencing
decisions unaffected. Id.; United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780 (11th Cir.
2000).
A reduction is not consistent with the Guidelines’ policy statement if the
amendment does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable
Guidelines range. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). Where a retroactively applicable
Guidelines amendment reduces a defendant’s base offense level, but does not alter
the sentencing range upon which his or her sentence was based, the district court
is unauthorized to grant a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction. Moore, 541
F.3d at 1330. This includes situations in which the defendant’s applicable
Guidelines range is calculated through the application of the career offender
Guideline. See id. at 1326-30.
In 1994, a defendant’s responsibility for 595.5 grams of cocaine base
resulted in a base offense level of 36, see U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(4) (1993), but
4

Case: 12-12129

Date Filed: 10/03/2012

Page: 5 of 5

Amendment 750 operated to lower the base offense level to 32, see id.
§ 2D1.1(c)(4) (2011). A career offender facing a statutory maximum of life
imprisonment received an offense level of 37, which applied if it was greater than
the offense level that was otherwise applicable. Id. § 4B1.1(A) (1993). A
defendant with a base offense level of 34 (37 reduced by 3 for acceptance of
responsibility) and a criminal history category of VI was subject to a Guidelines
range of 262 to 327 months’ imprisonment. U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, Pt. A (1993)
(sentencing table), the same offense level and Guideline level for Hobbs that
resulted from the 2008 sentencing pursuant to Amendment 706.
The district court did not have authority to reduce Hobbs’s sentence under
§ 3582(c)(2) because, in light of his designation as a career offender, Amendment
750 did not operate to lower his applicable Guidelines range. After a careful and
thorough consideration of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the district
court’s denial of Hobbs’s motion to reduce his sentence.
AFFIRMED.

5