[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JAN 15, 2009
No. 08-13600 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 94-00006-CR-12-HLM-4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PHILLIP PRICE WYATT,
a.k.a. "Seedie",
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(January 15, 2009)
Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Phillip Price Wyatt is serving a life sentence after being convicted more than
a decade ago for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute and to distribute
cocaine and cocaine base, commonly known as crack cocaine, and also for
possessing with intent to distribute cocaine.
Wyatt appeals the district court’s denial in June of 2008 of his motion for a
reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Wyatt’s motion was
based on Amendment 706, which lowered the base offense levels applicable to
crack cocaine sentences. The district court’s denial of the motion was based on the
fact that because he had been held accountable at his original sentencing for more
than 4.5 kilograms of crack cocaine (or cocaine base) his base offense level and
guidelines range were not changed by Amendment 706.
At Wyatt’s original sentencing in 1995, the district court had found that
Wyatt was accountable for more than 1.5 kilograms of crack cocaine. In
overruling an objection that Wyatt made at that time to the more than 1.5
kilograms finding, the district court had stated that the actual amount of crack
cocaine that he was responsible for was a minimum of 70 kilograms.
Wyatt contends that the district court did not make sufficient factual findings
at his original sentencing hearing to justify denial at this time of his § 3582(c)(2)
motion to reduce sentence. He argues that all factual findings from the original
sentencing proceeding must be left intact when deciding whether to apply a
2
guideline retroactively and that no additional factual findings are permitted in a
§ 3582 proceeding. That means, Wyatt argues, that the district court was bound
by its previous finding, which he characterizes as being that he was accountable for
only1.5 kilograms of crack.
Wyatt argues that the court was bound because (1) he had the assistance of
counsel at his sentencing hearing, but was unrepresented during his motion for
reduction of sentence, (2) a § 3582(c) proceeding is not a de novo proceeding, (3)
the government argued that he was accountable for 1.5 kilograms of crack on direct
appeal, making that finding the law of the case, and (4) we have clearly stated that
all original sentencing determinations remain in place in a § 3582 proceeding. If
he was accountable for only 1.5 kilograms of crack, the argument goes, he is
eligible for a two-level reduction in his sentence under Amendment 706. And once
that happens, Wyatt contends, the district court must apply United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005), and its progeny, which makes
possible a variance below the newly reduced guideline range.
In an appeal of the denial of a motion to reduce sentence under
18 U.S.C. § 3582, we review “de novo the district court’s legal conclusions
regarding the scope of its authority under the Sentencing Guidelines.” United
States v. White, 305 F.3d 1264, 1267 (11th Cir. 2002). We also review “de novo
3
questions of statutory interpretation.” United States v. Maupin, 520 F.3d 1304,
1306 (11th Cir. 2008). A district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3852(c)(2), based on a subsequent change in the
sentencing guidelines, is reviewed only for an abuse of discretion. White, 305 F.3d
at 1267.
A district court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been
imposed except where expressly permitted by statute or by Fed.R.Crim.P. 35. 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c). One statutory exception to this general rule includes relief under
§ 3582(c)(2), which provides:
[I]n the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of
imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been
lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o),
upon motion of the defendant or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons,
or on its own motion, the court may reduce the term of imprisonment,
after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent
that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with
applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). A sentencing guidelines range has been lowered for these
purposes only when it has been lowered by a retroactively applicable amendment
to the guidelines. United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1327 (11th Cir. 2008).
When that happens and a defendant’s base offense level is lowered but there is no
change in ultimate guidelines range, the district court lacks jurisdiction to reduce a
sentence under § 3582(c)(2). Id. at 1327-28. A motion for a reduction in sentence
4
is not a de novo proceeding. United v. Cothran, 106 F.3d 1560, 1562 (11th Cir.
1997). When considering a reduction in sentence under § 3582(c), the district
court is bound by any factual findings made to determine the appropriate sentence
in the original sentence proceedings. Id. at 1563.
On November 1, 2007, the Sentencing Commission promulgated
Amendment 706, which amended the Drug Quantity Table in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c).
U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 706 (2007). The effect of Amendment 706 is to provide
a two-level reduction in base offense levels for certain crack cocaine offenses. See
id. The Commission made this amendment retroactively applicable, effective as of
March 3, 2008. See U.S.S.G., App. C, Amend. 713 (Supp. May 1, 2008). After
the implementation of Amendment 706, defendants held accountable for more than
4.5 kilograms of crack, rather than the prior amount of 1.5 kilograms of crack, are
assigned a base offense level of 38. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1). That means that
defendants responsible for more than 4.5 kilograms of cocaine base do not benefit
from the amendment.
In this case at the original sentence proceeding in 1995 the district court did
not find that Wyatt was responsible for only 1.5 kilograms of cocaine base, but
instead found that he was responsible for more than that amount. At that time one
and a half kilograms was the threshold amount necessary for setting his base
5
offense level at the maximum. In addition, in overruling Wyatt’s objection to the
amount attributed to him, the district court at the original sentence proceeding
stated that Wyatt was responsible for at least 70 kilograms of cocaine base. That
statement qualifies as a finding. As a result, Amendment 706 does not apply to
Wyatt’s sentence. It follows that the Booker decision and others like it have no
application, either.
AFFIRMED.
6