USA v. Joseph Smith
Per Curiam OPINION filed : We AFFIRM the district court s order denying the motion to reduce sentence, decision not for publication. Martha Craig Daughtrey, Circuit Judge; Deborah L. Cook, Circuit Judge and Helene N. White, Circuit Judge.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 13a0908n.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
JOSEPH SCOTLAND SMITH, aka Tiny,
aka Joseph Smith,
Oct 23, 2013
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
BEFORE: DAUGHTREY, COOK, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Joseph Scotland Smith, a federal prisoner represented by counsel, appeals
a district-court order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence. We
In 2011, Smith pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiring to distribute more than fifty grams
of cocaine base. As a career offender, he faced a Guidelines sentencing range of 262 to 327 months’
imprisonment, applying the Guidelines calculations under the recently enacted Fair Sentencing Act
(FSA). Smith’s Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement called for application of a three-level reduction
in the Guidelines calculation for acceptance of responsibility, and an agreed-upon ten year sentence.
The district court accepted the plea agreement and sentenced Smith to 120 months’ imprisonment,
noting that if the FSA provisions changing the statutory mandatory minimum and maximum
sentences for crack cocaine applied to crimes committed before its enactment, Smith’s Guidelines
range would be 188 to 235 months. Although the FSA’s new mandatory minimum did in fact apply,
the court and the attorneys proceeded under the assumption that the ten-year, rather than the new
five-year, mandatory minimum sentence controlled.
Smith subsequently filed a motion for reduction of sentence under § 3582(c)(2), which
allows a district court to modify a defendant’s sentence when it is “based on a sentencing range that
has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The
district court denied the motion, explaining that no Guidelines amendment lowered his sentencing
range and that the FSA’s new statutory minimum does not confer § 3582(c)(2) jurisdiction.
Moreover, the district court concluded that “the sentence remains sufficient but not greater than
necessary to satisfy the purpose of sentencing.”
On appeal, Smith argues that his sentence was based on the crack cocaine guidelines and that
he is eligible for a sentence reduction under Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (2011), and
United States v. Jackson, 678 F.3d 442 (6th Cir. 2012).
Generally, we review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s ruling on a § 3582(c)(2)
motion for modification of a sentence, but where the court “does not simply decline to use its
authority under § 3582(c)(2) but instead rules that it has no authority to reduce the defendant’s
sentence under the statute, the district court’s conclusion that the defendant is ineligible for a
sentence reduction is a question of law that is reviewed de novo.” United States v. Johnson, 569
F.3d 619, 623 (6th Cir. 2009).
We need not determine whether the district court correctly determined that it lacked authority
to resentence under § 3582(c)(2) because its ultimate conclusion is clear: Although the court did
not consider the FSA’s lower mandatory minimum of five years when determining Smith’s sentence,
it continued to be of the view that the original agreed-upon sentence of 120 months is sufficient but
not greater than necessary to satisfy the purpose of sentencing. Thus, further discussion of the
district court’s authority to resentence under § 3582(c)(2) is unnecessary. Accordingly, we AFFIRM
the district court’s order denying the motion to reduce sentence.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?