NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-4380
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
SHANNON LAMONT MATHIS
a/k/a Shan Money
Shannon Lamont Mathis,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
D.C. Criminal No. 06-cr-00059-001
(Honorable Sean J. McLaughlin)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 8, 2010
Before: SCIRICA, JORDAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: June 14, 2010)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
PER CURIAM.
Shannon Mathis, a prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the District Court order
denying his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in sentence. For the reasons
that follow, we will affirm the order of the District Court.
Following a jury trial in 2007, Mathis was convicted of possession with intent to
distribute five grams or more of crack, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and
841(b)(1)(B)(iii), and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of §§ 841(a)(1)
and 841(b)(1)(C). The District Court delayed Mathis’ sentencing until after the Sentencing
Commission promulgated Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Amendment 706
provided a two-level base offense level reduction for certain crack-related offenses, including
that for which Mathis was convicted.
At sentencing, the District Court calculated Mathis’ base offense level at 26, and his
criminal history category at IV, with a resulting guideline range of 92 to 115 months’
imprisonment. Taking into account Amendment 706, the District Court calculated his
guideline range at 77 to 96 months. However, the District Court was required to impose a
minimum sentence of 120 months under § 841(b)(1)(B), and, after including enhancements
for obstructing justice and witness intimidation, the District Court sentenced Mathis to 185
months’ imprisonment. We affirmed Mathis’ conviction and sentence in June 2009. See
United States v. Mathis, C.A. No. 08-1688 (judgment entered June 22, 2009).
While his direct appeal was pending, Mathis filed in the District Court a motion under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a retroactive modification of his sentence, based on the two-level
reduction afforded by Amendment 706. The District Court denied the motion, and Mathis
filed a timely notice of appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
2
§ 1291. We review the decision to deny a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse
of discretion. See United States v. Mateo, 560 F.3d 152, 154 & n.2 (3d Cir. 2009).
In denying relief, the District Court reasoned that, under the plain language of § 3582,
Mathis was ineligible for a sentence reduction. Section 3582 allows a court to lower a
sentence where the applicable sentencing range was “subsequently . . . lowered by the
Sentencing Commission.” § 3582(c)(2) (emphasis added). Amendment 706 was passed
before Mathis received his sentence. Indeed, the District Court postponed sentencing at his
request in anticipation of Amendment 706, and expressly considered the import of the
amendment at sentencing. Because Amendment 706 preceded Mathis’ sentence, the District
Court concluded, he could not obtain relief under § 3582(c)(2). We agree.
Given that he was statutorily ineligible for a sentence reduction because he was
sentenced under Amendment 706, there is no need to evaluate the District Court’s other
reasons for denying relief, or Mathis’ additional arguments regarding the applicability of
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), to his § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. Accordingly,
and for the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
3