USA v. John Haley

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-30290 Affirmed] Judge: JLW , Judge: ECP , Judge: PRO. Mandate pull date is 12/03/2010 for Appellant John Benjamin Haley [10-30290]

USA v. John Haley Case: 10-30290

Document: 00511292183 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/12/2010

Doc. 0

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 10-30290 S u m m a r y Calendar November 12, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in t if f -A p p e lle e v. J O H N BENJAMIN HALEY, D e fe n d a n t -A p p e lla n t

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Louisiana U S D C No. 2:00-CR-20049-11

B e fo r e WIENER, PRADO and OWEN, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* J o h n Benjamin Haley, federal prisoner # 394469, pleaded guilty in 2000 t o conspiracy to distribute cocaine base and cocaine. He was sentenced to a term o f 216 months in prison, which represented a downward departure from the g u id e lin e s range of 292 to 365 months. The district court denied a request that t h e sentence run concurrent with a state sentence that Haley was then serving fo r a probation revocation, concluding that it lacked authority to do so. In 2009, t h e district court granted a motion by Haley to reduce his sentence pursuant to
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-30290 Document: 00511292183 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/12/2010 No. 10-30290 1 8 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines that r e d u c e d base offense levels for cocaine base offenses. Haley again requested that t h e court order his sentence to run concurrently with his undischarged state s e n te n ce . The district court determined that it lacked authority under

§ 3582(c)(2) and the relevant Sentencing Commission policy statements to do so. Haley now appeals that determination. A s the Supreme Court and this court have made clear, a § 3582(c)(2) p r o c e e d in g is not a full resentencing; rather, it is an opportunity for a sentence r e d u c t io n based on limited circumstances prescribed by the Sentencing C o m m is s io n and consistent with the Commission's policy statements. Dillon v. U n ite d States, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2691-94 (2010); United States v. Doublin, 572 F .3 d 235, 236-39 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 517 (2009). In light of the lim it e d nature of a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding, a district court may not revisit m is t a k e s committed at the initial sentencing. Dillon, 130 S. Ct. at 2694.

Further, the policy statements expressly state that the court "`shall substitute o n ly '" the amended guidelines range for the original range and "`shall leave all o t h e r guideline application decisions unaffected.'" § 1B1.10(b)(1)). H a le y acknowledges Dillon but argues that there is nothing in the policy s t a t e m e n t that prohibits a district court from considering whether a reduced s e n te n c e should be ordered to run concurrently or consecutively to an u n d is c h a r g e d term of imprisonment. According to Haley, that authority is g r a n t e d under 18 U.S.C. § 3584, which is not referenced by the policy statement in § 1B1.10. H a le y 's arguments run headlong into the plain language of § 3582(c)(2) a n d Dillon. Nothing in the statute indicates that a court may modify other a s p e c t s of the sentence, and Dillon makes pellucid that § 3582(c)(2) merely " p e r m it s a sentence reduction within the narrow bounds established by the C o m m is s io n ." Dillon, 130 S. Ct. at 2694. 2 In addition, the relevant policy Id. (quoting U.S.S.G.

Case: 10-30290 Document: 00511292183 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/12/2010 No. 10-30290 s t a t e m e n t permits a court only to substitute the amendments, leaving all other g u id e lin e applications unaffected. Thus, neither the statute nor the relevant p o lic y statement permits a district court to do anything other than grant a r e d u c t io n based on amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines. A lt h o u g h we have not addressed the precise issue here, the answer is n e c e s s a r ily dictated by Dillon and § 3582(c)(2), and it is consistent with the a p p r o a c h of at least one other circuit, whose reasoning we find persuasive. See U n ite d States v. Harris, 574 F.3d 971, 973 (8th Cir. 2009). In short, because the c o n c u r r e n t sentencing issue Haley raises was unaffected by the amendments to t h e Sentencing Guidelines, the district court correctly concluded that it lacked a u t h o r it y under § 3582(c)(2) to address the issue. See Dillon, 130 S. Ct. at 2694. T h e judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3