Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 33 views

    United States v. Anthony Jackson, 11th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The case involves a defendant appealing the denial of a motion to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 782 and Alleyne v. United States. The court affirms the denial, finding that while Amendment 782 lowered the guidelines range for the drug offense, the defendant's sentence was already lower due to a variance, and the court cannot further reduce below the amended range. It also finds that Alleyne is not a retroactive guidelines amendment that would allow a reduction of the mandatory consecutive firearm sentence under §3582(c)(2).

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Anthony Jackson, 11th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    33 views5 pages
    The case involves a defendant appealing the denial of a motion to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 782 and Alleyne v. United States. The court affirms the denial, finding that while Amendment 782 lowered the guidelines range for the drug offense, the defendant's sentence was already lower due to a variance, and the court cannot further reduce below the amended range. It also finds that Alleyne is not a retroactive guidelines amendment that would allow a reduction of the mandatory consecutive firearm sentence under §3582(c)(2).

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-10-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-11391

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involves a defendant appealing the denial of a motion to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 782 and Alleyne v. United States. The court affirms the denial, finding that while Amendment 782 lowered the guidelines range for the drug offense, the defendant's sentence was already lower due to a variance, and the court cannot further reduce below the amended range. It also finds that Alleyne is not a retroactive guidelines amendment that would allow a reduction of the mandatory consecutive firearm sentence under §3582(c)(2).

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    33 views5 pages

    United States v. Anthony Jackson, 11th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The case involves a defendant appealing the denial of a motion to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 782 and Alleyne v. United States. The court affirms the denial, finding that while Amendment 782 lowered the guidelines range for the drug offense, the defendant's sentence was already lower due to a variance, and the court cannot further reduce below the amended range. It also finds that Alleyne is not a retroactive guidelines amendment that would allow a reduction of the mandatory consecutive firearm sentence under §3582(c)(2).

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 5

    Case: 15-11391

    Date Filed: 10/22/2015

    Page: 1 of 5

    [DO NOT PUBLISH]

    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 15-11391
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 9:08-cr-80073-DTKH-2

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    ANTHONY JACKSON,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Florida
    ________________________
    (October 22, 2015)
    Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, HULL and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    Case: 15-11391

    Date Filed: 10/22/2015

    Page: 2 of 5

    Anthony Jackson appeals the district courts denial of his 18 U.S.C.


    3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence. He argues that he is entitled to a
    sentence reduction because Amendment 782 to the sentencing guidelines lowered
    the advisory guideline range for one of his convictions, and the Supreme Courts
    decision in Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. __, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), resulted
    in a lower mandatory consecutive sentence for his other conviction, thereby
    reducing his total guidelines range for the combined convictions.
    In 2008 Jackson pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to conspiracy to
    possess with intent to distribute in excess of five kilograms of cocaine
    hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), and brandishing a firearm in
    relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(ii).
    The presentence investigation report set a base offense level of 32 for his drug
    conviction based on U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(a)(3), (c)(4) (2008), and after the
    application of several adjustments, it assigned him a total offense level of 35. With
    his criminal history category of III, his advisory guidelines range was 210 to 262
    months imprisonment. In addition, his conviction for brandishing a firearm carried
    a mandatory minimum 84-month sentence, which was required to run
    consecutively to the sentence for the drug offense. Based on the 18 U.S.C.
    3553(a) factors, the district court varied downward and sentenced Jackson to 156

    Case: 15-11391

    Date Filed: 10/22/2015

    Page: 3 of 5

    months for the drug conviction, followed by the mandatory consecutive 84-month
    sentence for the firearm conviction, yielding a total sentence of 240 months.
    In 2014 Jackson filed a pro se 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence,
    contending that Amendment 782, which retroactively amended 2D1.1, lowered
    his offense level. The district court determined that, although Amendment 782
    lowered the offense level for Jacksons drug conviction, the downward variance he
    had received rendered his current sentence lower than the amended guidelines
    range. Because that variance was not for substantial assistance, the guidelines
    prohibited a comparable reduction to the amended range. The district court
    concluded that it lacked the authority to reduce Jacksons sentence and denied his
    3582(c)(2) motion.
    We review de novo the district courts legal conclusions about its authority
    to reduce a sentence under 3582(c)(2). United States v. Douglas, 576 F.3d 1216,
    1218 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009). Jackson is correct that Amendment 782 reduced his
    offense level for his drug conviction to 33, yielding an amended guidelines range
    of 168 to 210 months. See U.S.S.G. 1B1.10(d); U.S.S.G., App. C, Amend. 782
    (2014). But his sentence for the drug offense 156 months is below the
    amended guidelines range, and the variance he received was not based on
    substantial assistance to authorities. See U.S.S.G. 1B1.10(b)(2)(A)(B)
    (providing that the court shall not reduce the defendants term of imprisonment
    3

    Case: 15-11391

    Date Filed: 10/22/2015

    Page: 4 of 5

    under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) . . . to a term that is less than the minimum of the
    amended guideline range unless the original sentence was reduced pursuant to a
    government motion for a downward variance based on substantial assistance). The
    district court was not authorized by 3582(c)(2) to reduce Jacksons sentence. See
    18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G. 1B1.10(b)(2).
    Jackson also contends that the district court should have reduced the
    sentence for his firearm conviction from 84 months to 60 months because, in
    violation of the rule announced in Alleyne, the government did not prove to a jury
    beyond a reasonable doubt that he brandished a firearm. See Alleyne, 570 U.S. at
    __, 133 S. Ct. at 2155. Because he raised this argument for the first time on
    appeal, we review for plain error. See United States v. Harris, 741 F.3d 1245,
    1248 (11th Cir. 2014). Under that standard, the defendant must show (1) error,
    (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights. If those conditions are met,
    we may exercise our discretion to correct the error only if the error seriously
    affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.
    (citation omitted).
    The district court did not err, plainly or otherwise, in failing to reduce
    Jacksons sentence for the firearm conviction because Alleyne is not an
    amendment to the guidelines that would authorize a sentence reduction under
    3582(c)(2). See 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2); cf. United States v. Moreno, 421 F.3d
    4

    Case: 15-11391

    Date Filed: 10/22/2015

    Page: 5 of 5

    1217, 1220 (11th Cir. 2005) (holding that United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220,
    125 S. Ct. 738 (2005) is a Supreme Court decision, not a retroactively applicable
    guideline amendment by the Sentencing Commission. Therefore, Booker is
    inapplicable to 3582(c)(2) motions). For these reasons, we affirm the district
    courts denial of Jacksons 3582(c)(2) motion.
    AFFIRMED.

    You might also like