USA v. Lloyd Washington, Jr.

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: CHAGARES, KRAUSE and ROTH, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 3.

Case: 16-2306

Document: 003112503495

Page: 1

Date Filed: 01/05/2017

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 16-2306
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
LLOYD WASHINGTON, JR.,
a/k/a Bub
Lloyd Washington, Jr.,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 2-07-cr-00258-001)
District Judge: Honorable Cynthia M. Rufe
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
August 19, 2016
Before: CHAGARES, KRAUSE and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: January 5, 2017)
___________
OPINION*
___________
PER CURIAM

*

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

Case: 16-2306

Document: 003112503495

Page: 2

Date Filed: 01/05/2017

Pro se appellant Lloyd Washington Jr. appeals from an order of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denying his motion filed under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We will affirm.
Following a 2009 jury trial in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Washington
was found guilty of conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and
attempted possession of five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §
846 and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The probation office found that Washington was
responsible for 213.7 kilograms of cocaine and also applied a three-level enhancement
for his role in the offense, resulting in a total offense level of 41 and Guidelines range of
324 to 405 months. But at his April 13, 2012 sentencing, the District Court imposed a
below-Guidelines sentence of 192 months.
We affirmed Washington’s conviction. United States v. Washington, 543 F.
App'x 171 (3d Cir. 2013). The District Court subsequently denied a § 2255 motion that
he filed, and we declined to issue a certificate of appealability at C.A. No. 3278. He filed
the instant § 3582(c)(2) motion on June 29, 2015, seeking a sentence reduction based on
the United States Sentencing Commission’s amendment of the Drug Quantity Table in
2014 – Amendment 782 – which reduces by two levels the base offense levels in the
Drug Quantity Table at § 2D1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. The District Court denied
this motion on April 14, 2016, noting that the sentence actually imposed – 192 months –
was lower than the Guidelines range resulting from application of Amendment 782. This
timely appeal ensued.
2

Case: 16-2306

Document: 003112503495

Page: 3

Date Filed: 01/05/2017

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise plenary review over the
District Court’s denial of relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). United States v.
Weatherspoon, 696 F.3d 416, 420 (3d Cir. 2012). Although application of Amendment
782 would reduce Washington’s Guideline range – from 324 to 405 months to 262 to 327
months – a court may not reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) below the range
contemplated by the amended guideline. United States v. Berberena, 694 F.3d 514, 51819 (3d Cir. 2012) (policy statement at § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) of the Sentencing Guidelines,
which “prohibits a reduction below the low end of a prisoner's new range, even if the
prisoner originally received a below-Guidelines sentence,” is binding on a district court
in the context of a § 3582(c)(2) motion). Because Washington received a belowGuidelines sentence, and that sentence is lower than the amended range contemplated by
Amendment 782, he is not entitled to relief under § 3582(c)(2).1

Accordingly we will

affirm the order of the District Court.

Although acknowledging that the policy statement at § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) “forbids [the]
reduction” he requests, Washington argues that this “limitation should not be enforced.”
We have previously rejected this argument. Berberena, 694 F.3d at 522 (“If a sentence
reduction is inconsistent with a policy statement, it would violate § 3582(c)’s directive,
so policy statements must be binding.”) (internal citation omitted). He also contends that
the policy statement offends the Equal Protection Clause because “it is not rational to
limit further reductions . . . when the District Court has previously determined that a
below guideline sentence . . . should be granted.” This argument is similarly without
merit.
1

3