FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS January 30, 2009
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 08-2114
v. (D. New Mexico)
LLOYD TAPLIN, (D.C. No. 1:03-CR-01293-WJ-1)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before MURPHY, ANDERSON, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
In 2003, Lloyd Taplin pleaded guilty to three counts of distribution of crack
cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). Utilizing the career offender
provisions set out in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, rather than the crack cocaine provisions
set out in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, the district court sentenced Taplin to a term of
imprisonment of 151 months. In a series of amendments to the Sentencing
Guidelines adopted in late 2007 and early 2008, the United States Sentencing
Commission decreased by two levels the base offense level assigned to quantities
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
of crack cocaine in § 2D1.1 and made that change retroactive to those previously
sentenced under § 2D1.1. United States v. Sharkey, 543 F.3d 1236, 1237 (10th
Cir. 2008) (setting out history of Amendments 706 and 713 of the Sentencing
Guidelines). Soon thereafter, Taplin filed a motion, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c), for a reduction in his sentence pursuant to Amendments 706 and 713.
The district court denied the motion, concluding Taplin was not entitled to relief
because his base offense level was set under the career offender guideline, rather
than the crack cocaine guideline. Thus, this appeal presents the following pure
question of law: Did the district court err in concluding Taplin was not entitled to
relief under § 3582(c) because Taplin’s offense level was set by application of the
§ 4B1.1 career offender guideline, rather than the crack cocaine provisions set out
in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1?
In a decision issued after the briefing was complete in this case, we
resolved this exact question. Sharkey, 543 F.3d at 1239. Sharkey holds that when
a defendant’s base offense level is set under the § 4B1.1 career offender
guideline, the defendant is not entitled to a reduction in his sentence pursuant to
Amendment 706 and § 3582(c). Id. It further holds that neither the decision in
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), nor in Kimbrough v. United States,
128 S. Ct. 558 (2007), alter that outcome. Sharkey, 543 F.3d at 1239.
As Sharkey makes clear, the district court correctly denied Taplin’s
§ 3582(c) motion for a reduction in his sentence. Thus, the order of the United
-2-
States District Court for the District of New Mexico denying Taplin’s § 3582(c)
motion is hereby AFFIRMED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-3-