Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-8-2007
USA v. Blount
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-4062
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Blount" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 982.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/982
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 05-4062
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
KEITH BLOUNT,
Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
D.C. Crim. No. 98-cr-00412-2
District Judge: The Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 21, 2007
Before: BARRY, CHAGARES, and TASHIMA,* Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: June 8, 2007)
OPINION
*
The Honorable A. Wallace Tashima, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
BARRY, Circuit Judge
On March 3, 1999, a jury found Appellant Keith Blount guilty on one count of
intentionally distributing approximately one kilogram of cocaine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The District Court sentenced Blount as a career offender to 264
months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release, applying the 40-year
statutory maximum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). Blount appealed, and on December
20, 2000, we affirmed the judgment in an unpublished memorandum opinion. See United
States v. Blount, 251 F.3d 154 (Table) (3d Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 908 (2001).
On September 23, 2002, Blount filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate,
set aside or correct his sentence, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective. The
District Court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding trial counsel
ineffective for failing to request a sentence adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 to reflect
time that Blount had served in state confinement prior to his federal sentencing. The
Court ordered a resentencing hearing “to consider whether a downward departure to take
into account time served in state incarceration prior to the federal sentencing is
warranted.” (Appellant’s App. vol. II at 267.)
On August 26, 2005, the District Court awarded Blount maximum credit for his
time in state confinement and amended the judgment to reflect an adjusted sentence of
245 months and 28 days, to run concurrent with his undischarged state sentence. In so
doing, the Court found that neither Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), nor
2
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), entitled Blount to a de novo resentencing.
In the alternative, the Court denied Blount’s objections to the presentence investigation
report. Blount’s adjusted sentence was within the advisory Guidelines range of 262 to
327 months. This appeal followed.1
Blount argues that the District Court instructed the jury that drug quantity was not
an element of the offense, thus exposing him only to the 20-year statutory maximum
under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). He also contends that the Court failed to give
meaningful consideration to the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The
government responds that the 40-year statutory maximum applied because Blount
stipulated to a drug quantity of 996 grams and because he was a career offender under
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. It also notes that the sole purpose of the resentencing hearing was to
determine Blount’s entitlement to credit for time served in state custody, not to reconsider
de novo his previously-affirmed sentence.
Because Booker does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review, Lloyd v.
United States, 407 F.3d 608, 615-16 (3d Cir. 2005), we agree with the District Court’s
conclusion that Blount was not entitled to a de novo resentencing. His renewed challenge
to the Court’s application of the 40-year statutory maximum and career offender
designation, therefore, is not before us. Even if it were, however, we would adhere to our
1
The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and we have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742.
3
prior rejection of this argument. Blount’s stipulation to a drug quantity of 996 grams of
cocaine, his stipulation that the chemist’s report establishing this quantity was “accurate,”
and his attorney’s representation that “the quantity of the drugs is not in dispute,”
resolved any possible error under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). See
Blakely, 542 U.S. at 303 (“[T]he ‘statutory maximum’ for Apprendi purposes is the
maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the
jury verdict or admitted by the defendant.” (some emphasis omitted)).
Blount’s related argument concerning Amendment 591 to the Sentencing
Guidelines, which applies retroactively pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, fails largely for
the same reason. That amendment requires only that the sentencing court determine the
base offense level with reference to the offense of conviction. Under Appendix A of the
Sentencing Guidelines, the base offense level applicable to any conviction under 21
U.S.C. § 841(a) or (b)(1)-(3) is § 2D1.1, the provision applied here. We are satisfied that
the District Court utilized the correct offense guideline, and, more to the point, that
Blount’s career offender status properly overrode the base offense level.
Finally, Blount’s argument concerning the § 3553(a) factors is unavailing. As
noted, Booker does not apply here. Even if it did, however, we would find that the
District Court adequately addressed all pertinent § 3553(a) factors. We will affirm.
4