USA v. Tony Jackson

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Tony Lanier Jackson. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 15-11852

Date Filed: 10/31/2016

Page: 1 of 6

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-11852
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:97-cr-00043-DHB-BKE-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TONY LANIER JACKSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(October 31, 2016)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JULIE CARNES, and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 15-11852

Date Filed: 10/31/2016

Page: 2 of 6

Defendant Tony Jackson, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s sua
sponte denial of a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and
Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. After careful review, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Following a jury trial in 1998, Defendant was found guilty of conspiring to
possess with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine base and cocaine
hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Prior to trial, the Government filed
a notice of intent to seek an enhanced penalty pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and
851, based on Defendant’s three prior state felony drug convictions.
Applying the 1997 Sentencing Guidelines, the Presentence Investigation
Report (“PSR”) attributed 12.535 kilograms of cocaine base to Defendant and
assigned him a base offense level of 38, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1)
because his offense involved more than 1.5 kilograms of cocaine base. Defendant
received two separate enhancements, which resulted in a total offense level of 44.
Based on a total offense level of 44 and a criminal history category of VI,
Defendant’s advisory guideline range was life imprisonment. Pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 5G1.1(c)(2), Defendant was subject to a mandatory term of life imprisonment
based on the sentencing enhancement under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A) and 851.
The district court consequently sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment.

2

Case: 15-11852

Date Filed: 10/31/2016

Page: 3 of 6

In 2015, Defendant filed a motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to
§ 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782, arguing that Amendment 782 lowered his base
offense level by two levels from 38 to 36 and resulted in an amended guideline
range of 360 months’ to life imprisonment. Defendant contended that he should
receive a sentence reduction greater than the two levels provided for by
Amendment 782 because the Guidelines in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding are advisory
under Kimbrough 1 and Booker 2.
The district court deferred ruling and administratively terminated
Defendant’s motion because no defendant could be released on the basis of
Amendment 782 prior to November 1, 2015. Shortly thereafter, the district court
sua sponte considered whether Defendant was eligible for a sentence reduction
under § 3582(c)(2). The district court concluded that Defendant was not eligible
for a sentence reduction because Defendant was sentenced to the statutory
mandatory minimum of life imprisonment.
Defendant now appeals, arguing that he qualifies for a sentence reduction
because Amendment 782 lowered his guideline range from the then-mandatory life
sentence to 360 months’ to life imprisonment. He also asserts that the district court

1

Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007).

2

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
3

Case: 15-11852

Date Filed: 10/31/2016

Page: 4 of 6

violated Kimbrough and Booker by treating the Guidelines’ provisions pertaining
to § 3582(c)(2) motions as mandatory. 3
II. DISCUSSION
We review de novo a district court’s legal conclusions on the scope of its
authority under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Jones, 548 F.3d 1366, 1368 (11th
Cir. 2008). Under § 3582(c)(2), a district court may modify a term of
imprisonment when the original sentencing range has subsequently been lowered
as a result of an amendment to the Guidelines by the Sentencing Commission. 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). To be eligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2), a
defendant must identify an amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines that is listed
in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d). U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1).
A defendant is not eligible for a sentence reduction if a guideline
amendment “does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable
guideline range.” Id. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). Stated another way, a reduction is not
authorized if the amendment does not lower the defendant’s guidelines range
because “of the operation of another guideline or statutory provision,” such as a
statutory mandatory minimum term. Id. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(A)).

3

In his initial brief, Defendant also argued that the district court abused its discretion by failing
to provide an explanation for its denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion. Because Defendant expressly
withdrew that argument in his reply brief, we do not address it further.
4

Case: 15-11852

Date Filed: 10/31/2016

Page: 5 of 6

Here, the district court did not err by denying Defendant’s § 3582(c)(2)
motion because Defendant was not eligible for a sentence reduction. Defendant
relies on Amendment 782, which is listed in § 1B1.10(d) and reduced the base
offense levels under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 by two levels for most drug offenses. See
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d); U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 782 (2014). Defendant’s life
imprisonment sentence, however, was not based on the drug quantity offense levels
listed in § 2D1.1, but instead was based on the mandatory minimum sentence of
life imprisonment listed in 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846, and 851. See 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846, 851. Because Defendant’s guideline range was not
based on the drug quantity guidelines, Amendment 782 did not lower the
sentencing range upon which Defendant’s sentence was based. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10,
comment. (n.1(A)). Indeed, Defendant would still be subject to a statutory
minimum sentence of life imprisonment even after Amendment 782. See United
States v. Mills, 613 F.3d 1070, 1077–78 (11th Cir. 2010) (“[T]he guidelines range
for a defendant subject to a statutory minimum would not be lowered by an
amendment, even if the amendment would otherwise be applicable to the
defendant.” (quotations omitted) (alteration in original)).
Defendant’s argument that the district court violated Kimbrough and Booker
by applying the Guidelines’ provisions that limit the extent to which a defendant is
eligible for relief under § 3582(c)(2) is without merit, as we have held that
5

Case: 15-11852

Date Filed: 10/31/2016

Page: 6 of 6

Kimbrough and Booker “do not prohibit the limitations on a judge’s discretion in
reducing a sentence imposed by § 3582(c)(2) and the applicable policy statement
by the Sentencing Commission.” United States v. Melvin, 556 F.3d 1190, 1192
(11th Cir. 2009). In short, because Defendant was subject to a statutory minimum
sentence, the district court lacked authority to reduce Defendant’s sentence. See
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(A)).
Accordingly, the district court’s denial of Defendant’s § 3582(c)(2) motion
is AFFIRMED.

6