Case: 14-11217 Date Filed: 01/27/2015 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-10563
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:05-cr-00447-SDM-MAP-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JARRETT CANNION,
a.k.a. Jee,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 14-11217
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:05-cr-00447-SDM-MAP-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
Case: 14-11217 Date Filed: 01/27/2015 Page: 2 of 8
JARRETT CANNION,
a.k.a. Jee,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(January 27, 2015)
Before ROSENBAUM, JULIE CARNES, and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jarrett Cannion is a pro se federal prisoner serving a 292-month sentence of
imprisonment for crack-cocaine offenses of which he was convicted in 2008. In
2013, Cannion filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence
based on Amendment 750 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”
or “Guidelines”), which lowered the guideline ranges for crack-cocaine offenses,
as well as the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (“FSA”), which lowered the statutory
mandatory minimums applicable to certain crack-cocaine offenses. The district
court denied the motion, concluding that Cannion was not entitled to relief under
§ 3582(c)(2) because (1) the FSA was not a Guidelines amendment and did not
apply retroactively, and (2) Amendment 750 did not lower Cannion’s applicable
guideline range.
2
Case: 14-11217 Date Filed: 01/27/2015 Page: 3 of 8
On appeal, Cannion argues that the district court abused its discretion in
addressing his § 3582(c)(2) motion based on Amendment 750. The government, in
turn, concedes that the district court erred in finding Cannion ineligible for relief
under § 3582(c)(2), and it asks this Court to reverse the denial and remand for
consideration of whether Cannion should receive a discretionary sentence
reduction. Because the district court erroneously concluded that it lacked the
authority to entertain Cannion’s motion, we reverse and remand. 1
Cannion was convicted in 2008 of one count of distributing at least five
grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(iii), and
one count of conspiring to distribute at least fifty grams of cocaine base, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(iii) and 846. In the presentence
investigation report (“PSR”), the probation officer held Cannion responsible for
77.88 grams of crack cocaine, yielding a base offense level of 30 under U.S.S.G.
Manual § 2D1.1. After a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility,
Cannion’s total offense level was 27. With a criminal history category of VI, the
PSR provided a guideline range between 130 and 162 months’ imprisonment.
At sentencing, the district court granted the government’s request for an
upward departure under U.S.S.G. Manual § 4A1.3 based on Cannion’s extensive
1
Cannion does not expressly challenge the denial of his motion based on the FSA, and
therefore arguably has abandoned the issue. See Sapuppo v. Floridian Allstate Ins. Co., 739 F.3d
678, 680-81 (11th Cir. 2014). In any case, we agree with the government that the district court
correctly determined that the FSA did not provide Cannion a basis for relief under § 3582(c)(2).
See United States v. Berry, 701 F.3d 374, 377 (11th Cir. 2012).
3
Case: 14-11217 Date Filed: 01/27/2015 Page: 4 of 8
criminal history. The court increased the base offense level from 30 to 38, and
then applied the three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, leaving
Cannion with a total offense level of 35 and a new guideline range of 292 to 365
months in prison. The court then imposed a total sentence of 292 months in prison.
In December 2013, Cannion moved for a reduction in his sentence under
§ 3582(c)(2), based on Amendment 750 and the FSA. Amendment 750 took effect
in November 2011, lowering the base offense levels applicable to crack-cocaine
offenses by revising the drug-quantity tables in U.S.S.G. Manual § 2D1.1(c). See
U.S.S.G. App. C., amend. 750. For an offender like Cannion, who was held
responsible for between 28 and 112 grams of crack cocaine, Amendment 750
reduced the base offense level from 30 to 26. Compare U.S.S.G. Manual
§ 2D1.1(c)(7) (2007), with U.S.S.G. Manual § 2D1.1(c)(7) (2011). Amendment
750 is retroactively applicable and may be enforced through a § 3582(c)(2) motion.
U.S.S.G. Manual § 1B1.10(c).
In denying Cannion’s motion, the district court determined that Amendment
750 did not have the effect of lowering his guideline range because, solely as a
result of the upward departure under § 4A1.3, “Cannion’s 292-month sentence was
not derived from the amount of cocaine base for which he was responsible.” 2
2
It appears that Cannion filed multiple notices of appeal in this case, triggering the
opening of two appeal numbers (14-10563 and 14-11217). Because both notices indicate
Cannion’s intent to appeal the district court’s denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion, we direct the
4
Case: 14-11217 Date Filed: 01/27/2015 Page: 5 of 8
Because the district court erred in finding Cannion ineligible for a sentence
reduction based on the § 4A1.3 departure, we reverse and remand.
We review de novo a district court’s legal conclusions on the scope of its
authority under § 3582(c)(2) and the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v.
Webb, 565 F.3d 789, 792 (11th Cir. 2009).
Section § 3582(c)(2) grants federal courts the power to reduce a term of
imprisonment if the defendant was sentenced based on a sentencing range that the
Sentencing Commission subsequently lowered through a retroactive amendment to
the Sentencing Guidelines. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 824-25, 130 S.
Ct. 2683, 2690 (2010); 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); see U.S.S.G. Manual
§ 1B1.10(a)(1). If a defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction, the court may,
in its discretion, reduce the term of imprisonment after considering the sentencing
factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
The Sentencing Commission has explained that a reduction is not authorized
under the Guidelines if a retroactive amendment “does not have the effect of
lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range.” U.S.S.G. Manual
§ 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). The Commission defines the “applicable guideline range,” in
turn, as “the guideline range that corresponds to the offense level and criminal
Clerk’s Office to DISMISS as duplicative appeal no. 14-11217, which was based on the second,
untimely notice of appeal docketed by the district court on March 20, 2014.
5
Case: 14-11217 Date Filed: 01/27/2015 Page: 6 of 8
history category determined pursuant to § 1B1.1(a), which is determined before
consideration of any departure provision in the Guidelines Manual or any
variance.” U.S.S.G. Manual § 1B1.10, cmt. (n.1(A)); see United States v.
Hippolyte, 712 F.3d 535, 540-41 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 181 (2013).
Because the district court did not exclude the § 4A1.3 departure in determining
Cannion’s “applicable guideline range,” the court erred. See United States v.
Hargrove, 732 F.3d 1253, 1254-55 & n.1 (11th Cir. 2013) (“In Amendment 759,
the Sentencing Commission made explicit that § 4A1.3 departures are not part of
the ‘applicable guideline range.’”); U.S.S.G. App. C, amend. 759. Nor was the
error harmless. Instead, Cannion is entitled to have his § 3582(c)(2) motion
addressed on the merits.
Amendment 750 had the effect of lowering Cannion’s “applicable guideline
range.” See U.S.S.G. Manual § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). In making this determination,
we first look to the guideline range that corresponds to the offense level and
criminal-history category without including the § 4A1.3 upward departure. See
Hargrove, 732 F.3d at 1254-55 & n.1. Here, Cannion’s “applicable guideline
range” before Amendment 750 was 130 to 162 months’ imprisonment (with a base
offense level of 30).
Next, we must “determine the amended guideline range that would have
been applicable to the defendant if [Amendment 750] had been in effect at the time
6
Case: 14-11217 Date Filed: 01/27/2015 Page: 7 of 8
the defendant was sentenced.” U.S.S.G. Manual § 1B1.10(b)(1); see Webb, 565
F.3d at 793. In doing so, we must “substitute only [Amendment 750] for the
corresponding guideline provisions that were applied when the defendant was
sentenced and shall leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected.”
U.S.S.G. Manual § 1B1.10(b)(1). As a result, had Amendment 750 been in effect
at the time of his sentencing, Cannion’s guideline range would have been 92 to 115
months’ imprisonment (with a base offense level of 26).
But because Cannion is subject to a 120-month statutory mandatory
minimum, his guideline range would be simply 120 months’ imprisonment. See 18
U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii) (2008); U.S.S.G. Manual § 5G1.1(b); see also Hargrove,
732 F.3d at 1255. Amendment 750, therefore, lowered Cannion’s “applicable
guideline range” from a range of 130 to 162 months to a range of 120 months.
U.S.S.G. Manual § 1B1.10, cmt. (n.1(A)); see 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
In sum, the district court erroneously concluded that it lacked the authority
to reduce Cannion’s sentence under § 3582(c) by basing its decision on the
§ 4A1.3 departure. See Hargrove, 732 F.3d at 1254-55 & n.1. We therefore
reverse the denial of Cannion’s motion and remand for a determination of whether
Cannion should receive a discretionary sentence reduction in consideration of the
Sentencing Guidelines and the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2).
7
Case: 14-11217 Date Filed: 01/27/2015 Page: 8 of 8
Appeal no. 14-10563 is REVERSED and REMANDED; Appeal no. 14-
11217 is DISMISSED as duplicative.
8