US v. Travis France

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00006-JPJ-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999745424].. [15-6662]

Appeal: 15-6662

Doc: 33

Filed: 02/01/2016

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6662

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TRAVIS NATHANIEL FRANCE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon.
James P. Jones, District
Judge. (1:09-cr-00006-JPJ-1)

Submitted:

January 20, 2016

Decided:

February 1, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Brian J. Beck,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Abingdon, Virginia, for
Appellant.
Anthony P. Giorno, United States Attorney, Jean B.
Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Ashwin Shandilya,
Third Year Law Intern, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6662

Doc: 33

Filed: 02/01/2016

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Travis

Nathaniel

France

pled

guilty

pursuant

to

a

plea

agreement to possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or
more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(A) (2012), and was sentenced in December 2009 as a career
offender

to

Guidelines

262
Manual

§ 3582(c)(2)
Amendment
France

months’

§ 4B1.1.

(2012)

782

to

argued

imprisonment.

motion

the

that

He
to

was

later

his

Guidelines.

eligible

U.S.

filed

reduce

Sentencing

he

See

for

a

Sentencing

an

18

U.S.C.

sentence
In

the

sentence

under
motion,

reduction

under § 3582(c)(2) despite being sentenced as a career offender
because the Guidelines range resulting from his career offender
designation

overrepresented

his

Guidelines

range.

He

also

argued that operation of the career offender Guideline in drug
cases was irrational and violated the Equal Protection Clause of
the

Fourteenth

disparate

and

The district
appeals.
We

Amendment

because

unfavorable

court

denied

such

outcomes
France’s

operation
for

resulted

Black

motion,

and

in

defendants.
France

now

We affirm.
review

for

abuse

of

discretion

a

district

court’s

decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) and
review de novo a district court’s determination of the scope of
its

legal

authority

under

that

provision.

Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010).
2

United

States

v.

Appeal: 15-6662

Doc: 33

Filed: 02/01/2016

Pg: 3 of 5

As a general matter, a sentencing court “may not modify a
term

of

imprisonment

§ 3582(c).

once

it

has

been

imposed.”

18

U.S.C.

Nevertheless, a court possesses the authority to

reduce a sentence “in the case of a defendant who has been
sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range
that

has

subsequently

Commission.”

been

lowered

Id. § 3582(c)(2).

by

the

Sentencing

In such a circumstance, the

court may reduce the defendant’s sentence, “after considering
the factors set forth in [18 U.S.C. §] 3553(a) [(2012)] to the
extent

that

consistent

they

with

are

applicable,

applicable

Sentencing Commission.”

policy

if

such

a

statements

reduction
issued

by

is
the

Id.

As the Supreme Court explained in Dillon v. United States,
the

“applicable

policy

statements”

referenced

in

are those found in § 1B1.10 of the Guidelines.
817,

826

reduction

(2010).
under

Pursuant

to

§ 3582(c)(2)

is

that

See 560 U.S.

provision,

authorized

§ 3582(c)(2)

a

only

sentence
when

a

retroactively applicable Guidelines amendment * has the effect of
lowering the defendant’s applicable Guidelines range.

See USSG

§ 1B1.10(a)(1), (2)(B), p.s.

*

Amendment 782 to the Guidelines, which generally reduces
by two levels the offense levels assigned to the drug quantities
listed
in
USSG
§ 2D1.1,
applies
retroactively.
USSG
§ 1B1.10(d), p.s.

3

Appeal: 15-6662

Doc: 33

After
conclude

Filed: 02/01/2016

review

that

the

of

the

record

district

denying France’s motion.

Pg: 4 of 5

and

court

did

the

parties’

not

briefs,

reversibly

err

we
in

We reject as without merit France’s

argument that the district court erred by declining to read USSG
§ 1B1.10, p.s., to allow a § 3582(c)(2) reduction for a career
offender on the basis of his post-offense conduct.

A district

court lacks the authority to grant a § 3582(c)(2) motion for a
reduced sentence under Amendment 782 if the defendant seeking
the

reduction

Guideline.
p.s.).

was

sentenced

pursuant

to

the

career

offender

See Munn, 595 F.3d at 187 (construing USSG § 1B1.10,

Although there is a limited exception to this rule when

the district court grants at sentencing a departure from the
Guidelines range resulting from the career offender designation
based

on

the

defendant’s

finding

criminal

that

history

the
and

range
relies

overrepresented
on

the

cocaine

the
base

Guidelines in calculating the extent of the departure, id. at
192, France did not receive at sentencing a departure from the
career offender Guidelines range due to the overrepresentation
of

his

criminal

history.

Additionally,

a

defendant’s

post-offense conduct is not a part of this limited exception.
See id.
We reject France’s claims, raised for the first time on
appeal, that there is a conflict between USSG § 1B1.10, p.s.,
and § 3582(c)(2) that should be resolved by application of the
4

Appeal: 15-6662

Doc: 33

Filed: 02/01/2016

Pg: 5 of 5

rule of lenity in his favor, and that his position regarding the
consideration of post-offense conduct finds support in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3661 (2012) and best avoids constitutional doubt with respect
to USSG § 1B1.10, p.s.

See Karpel v. Inova Health Sys. Servs.,

134 F.3d 1222, 1227 (4th Cir. 1998).

We also reject France’s

reliance on Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (2011), as
a

basis

for

relief

availability

of

enters

a

into

a

because

that

§ 3582(c)(2)

Fed.

R.

Crim.

decision

reduction
P.

to

addresses
a

11(c)(1)(C)

the

defendant

plea

who

agreement.

France did not enter into a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement.
We further reject as without merit France’s challenges to the
district
See

court’s

United

equal

States

v.

protection
Armstrong,

and
517

irrationality
U.S.

456,

rulings.

465

(1996);

Veney v. Wyche, 293 F.3d 726, 730-31 (4th Cir. 2002); United
States v. Presley, 52 F.3d 64, 68 (4th Cir. 1995).
We

therefore

We dispense

with

contentions

are

affirm

oral

the

argument

adequately

district
because

presented

in

court’s

order.

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

5