PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 11-2488
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
CLIFTON BARNEY, a/k/a Doodles
CLIFTON BARNEY,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. No. 1-06-cr-00019-001)
District Judge: Honorable Joseph H. Rodriguez
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
on February 7, 2012
Before: SLOVITER and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges, and
PADOVA, Senior District Judge*
(Filed: March 6, 2012)
*
Honorable John R. Padova, Senior Judge of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
sitting by designation.
Christopher O=Malley, Esq.
Julie A. McGrain, Esq.
Office of Federal Public Defender
800-840 Cooper Street
Suite 350
Camden, New Jersey 08102
Attorneys for Appellant
Mark E. Coyne, Esq.
Joseph B. Shumofsky, Esq.
Paul J. Fishman, Esq.
Office of United States Attorney
970 Broad Street
Newark, New Jersey 07102-2535
Attorneys for Appellee
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
PADOVA, Senior District Judge.
Appellant Clifton Barney appeals a May 26, 2011 District
Court Order denying his motion for a sentence reduction
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ' 3582(c)(2). He argues that the District
Court erred in concluding that Amendment 706 to the
Sentencing Guidelines, which reduced the base offense level for
most cocaine base offenses, did not lower his Aapplicable
guideline range@ for purposes of resentencing under 18 U.S.C. '
3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1291 and 18 U.S.C. 3742(a). For the following
reasons, we will affirm.
I.
On June 14, 2006, Appellant pled guilty to a single count
of possession with intent to distribute more than five grams of
crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. '' 841(a)(1) and
(b)(1)(B). Using the March 27, 2006 edition of the Sentencing
2
Guidelines, the Probation Office determined that the drug
quantity table in U.S.S.G. ' 2D1.1(c) (the ACrack Cocaine
Guidelines@) produced a base offense level of 32. Appellant had
11 criminal history points, which ordinarily correspond to a
criminal history category of V. However, Appellant qualified as
a Career Offender under U.S.S.G. ' 4B1.1 (the ACareer Offender
Guidelines@) due to two prior felony convictions, one for
aggravated assault and one for distribution of a controlled
substance. As a result, Appellant=s criminal history category
became VI and his base offense level became a 34. See
U.S.S.G. ' 4B1.1(b). After a three level reduction for
acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. ' 3E1.1, Appellant=s
total offense level was a 31, which, combined with Appellant=s
criminal history category of VI, resulted in an advisory
Guideline range of 188-235 months.
Appellant moved, however, for a downward departure
pursuant to U.S.S.G. ' 4A1.3, arguing that the Guidelines
overstated his criminal history. The District Court granted that
motion. In ascertaining the extent of the departure, the District
Court referred to the Crack Cocaine Guidelines and concluded
that it was appropriate to depart downward to the base offense
level that those Guidelines produced, absent application of the
Career Offender Guidelines. The Court also departed
downward with respect to the criminal history category,
reducing it from VI to V. With the additional reduction for
acceptance of responsibility, Appellant=s new total offense level
was a 29, which, combined with the reduced criminal history
category of V, produced a new advisory Guideline range of 140-
175 months. The Court sentenced Appellant within that range to
150 months of imprisonment. On appeal, this Court affirmed
Appellant=s sentence.
In April 2010, Appellant filed a motion for a sentence
reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ' 3582(c)(2), seeking the
benefit of Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The
District Court held a hearing on May 18, 2011, and thereafter
issued a May 26, 2011 Order, denying Appellant=s motion for a
sentence reduction. In an accompanying Memorandum, the
District Court explained that Appellant was not eligible for a
3
reduction of sentence because Amendment 706 did not lower
Appellant=s Aapplicable guideline range,@ which the Court
concluded was the pre-departure range of 188-235 months
dictated by the Career Offender Guidelines. Appellant timely
appealed the District Court=s order.
II.
Appellant=s sole argument on appeal is that the District
Court erred in concluding that his Aapplicable guideline range@
for purposes of determining his eligibility for re-sentencing was
the range dictated by the Career Offender Guidelines. In
Appellant=s view, his Aapplicable guideline range@ was the range
that applied after the U.S.S.G. ' 4A1.3 departure, i.e., the range
dictated by the Crack Cocaine Guidelines. He therefore argues
that Amendment 706 did reduce his Aapplicable guideline range@
and he is eligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. '
3582(c)(2).
Section 3582(c)(2) provides that:
[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). Section 3582(c)(2) therefore only
authorizes a reduction in a defendant=s sentence if (1) the
District Court sentenced the defendant Abased on@ a guideline
range that has been lowered by an amendment to the Guidelines
and (2) the reduction is Aconsistent with applicable policy
statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.@ Id. With
4
respect to the second requirement, U.S.S.G. ' 1B1.10(a)(2)(B)
provides that A[a] reduction in the defendant=s term of
imprisonment is not consistent with this policy statement and
therefore is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. ' 3582(c)(2) if -- . . .
an amendment . . . does not have the effect of lowering the
defendant=s applicable guideline range.@ Similarly, Application
Note 1(A) to U.S.S.G. ' 1B1.10 states that:
. . . a reduction in the defendant=s term of
imprisonment is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. '
3582(c)(2) and is not consistent with this policy
statement if: . . . (ii) an amendment [to the
Guideline range] is applicable to the defendant
but the amendment does not have the effect of
lowering the defendant=s applicable guideline
range because of the operation of another
guideline or statutory provision (e.g., a statutory
mandatory minimum term of imprisonment).
U.S.S.G. ' 1B1.10, cmt. n.1(A).
Here, the parties agree that Appellant=s sentence was
Abased on@ a sentencing range that was lowered by Amendment
706. They disagree, however, whether Amendment 706 had the
effect of lowering Appellant=s Aapplicable guideline range,@ such
that a sentence reduction would be Aconsistent with [the
Sentencing Commission=s] applicable policy statements.@ 18
U.S.C. ' 3582(c)(2). As noted above, the issue is whether
Appellant=s Aapplicable guideline range@ is the sentencing range
calculated under the Career Offender Guidelines, in which case
Appellant is not eligible for a sentence reduction, or the
sentencing range calculated under the Crack Cocaine
Guidelines, in which case he is eligible for a reduction.
In United States v. Flemming, 617 F.3d 252 (3d Cir.
2010), this Court considered whether the Aapplicable guideline
range@ for a career offender who was sentenced under the 2001
version of the Guidelines and received a downward departure
under ' 4A.1.3 was the sentencing range under the Career
Offender Guidelines or the Crack Cocaine Guidelines. The
5
Flemming court concluded that the 2001 version of the
Guidelines was ambiguous as to which range was the
Aapplicable guidelines range@ under such circumstances. Id. at
265. In that regard, the Court noted that the Guidelines Acontain
no global definition of the phrase >applicable guideline range.=@
Id. at 261. It also opined that the Application Instructions for
the Guidelines in U.S.S.G. ' 1B1.1, which dictate the order in
which a court is to apply the various provisions and chapters of
the Guidelines, neither Aclearly require the [' 4A1.3] departure
to be applied after the >applicable guideline range= is calculated .
. . nor . . . clearly require the departure to be applied before the
>applicable guideline range= is calculated.@ Id. at 265. In light of
this ambiguity, the Court in Flemming applied the rule of lenity,
granted Flemming the benefit of the Guidelines= ambiguity, and
held that Flemming was eligible for a reduction of sentence. Id.
at 269-72.
At the same time, the Flemming court recognized that,
following Flemming=s sentencing, there had been a 2003
amendment to the commentary to U.S.S.G. ' 1B1.1 that Amay
resolve th[e] ambiguity@ of whether the Aapplicable guideline
range@ is the range pre- or post-departure. Id. at 266, 270.
Amendment 651 to the Guidelines added the following
definition of Adeparture@ to the commentary to U.S.S.G. '
1B1.1:
ADeparture@ means (i) for purposes other than
those specified in subdivision (ii), imposition of a
sentence outside the applicable guideline range or
of a sentence that is otherwise different from the
guideline sentence; and (ii) for purposes of '
4A1.3 (Departure Based on Inadequacy of
Criminal History Category), assignment of a
criminal history category other than the otherwise
applicable criminal history category, in order to
effect a sentence outside the applicable guideline
range.
U.S.S.G. ' 1B1.1 cmt. n.1(E) (2003) (emphasis added). The
Court in Flemming stated that this definition Aappears . . . to
suggest that a ' 4A1.3 downward departure has no effect on a
6
defendant=s >applicable guideline range,=@ because it Aindicate[s]
that a ' 4A1.3 downward departure is a departure from, rather
than to, the >applicable guideline range.=@ Flemming, 617 F.3d at
266. The Court further observed that A[t]he Sixth, Eighth and
Tenth Circuits [have already] seized on this definition to
conclude that a ' 4A1.3 departure has no effect on the
>applicable guideline range= for a career offender.@ Id. (citing
United States v. Tolliver, 570 F.3d 1062, 1066 (8th Cir. 2009),
United States v. Pembrook, 609 F.3d 381, 385-86 (6th Cir.
2010), and United States v. Darton, 595 F.3d 1191, 1194 (10th
Cir. 2010)); see also United States v. Blackmon, 584 F.3d 1115,
1116-17 (8th Cir. 2009).
The Flemming court ultimately declined to decide
Awhether a career offender granted a ' 4A1.3 downward
departure under a post-2003 edition of the Sentencing
Guidelines would be eligible for a sentence reduction under 18
U.S.C. ' 3582(c)(2),@ explaining that it was precluded from
considering the new definition of Adeparture@ in Flemming=s
case, because Flemming had been sentenced before that
definition was adopted. Id. at 267, 271 n.26. Nevertheless, the
Court stated that Ato the extent that the 2003 definition provides
clearer guidance as to the >applicable guideline range= for a
defendant granted a ' 4A1.3 departure, we may be required to
treat that guidance as authoritative, as it does not appear to be
>inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of= the
Guidelines.@ Id. at 271 n.26 (quoting Stinson v. United States,
508 U.S. 36, 38 (1993)).
The present appeal raises the precise issue that Flemming
left unresolved, i.e., what is the Aapplicable guideline range@ for
a career offender receiving a ' 4A1.3 departure under a post-
2003 edition of the Guidelines. In other words, we have to
resolve whether the 2003 amendment resolves the ambiguity
that led to Flemming=s application of the rule of lenity.
Appellant urges us to conclude that, in spite of the added
definition of Adeparture,@ the phrase Aapplicable guideline range@
remains ambiguous. However, we conclude that the 2003
definition does resolve the ambiguity that the Flemming court
identified and clearly establishes that the Aapplicable guideline
range@ is that which precedes the application of a ' 4A1.3
7
departure. Indeed, we conclude that the definition=s explicit
statement that a ' 4A1.3 departure is the Aassignment of a
criminal history category in order to effect a sentence outside the
applicable guideline range,@ U.S.S.G. ' 1B1.1 cmt. n.1(E)
(emphasis added), leaves no doubt that a ' 4A1.3 departure is a
departure from the applicable guideline range, not a departure to
the applicable guideline range.1 Accordingly, the District Court
correctly determined that Appellant=s Aadvisory guideline range@
was the range dictated by the Career Offender Guidelines, not
his post-' 4A1.3 departure range, which corresponded to the
range set forth in the Crack Cocaine Guidelines. As a result,
Appellant is not eligible for a sentence reduction under 18
U.S.C. ' 3582(c).
III.
We have considered all other arguments made by the
parties on appeal, and conclude that no further discussion is
necessary. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District
Court order denying Appellant=s motion for reduction of
sentence.
1
This conclusion is consistent with Amendment 759 to the
Guidelines, effective November 1, 2011, which further amended
Application Note 1(A) to U.S.S.G. ' 1B1.10 by adding a
parenthetical, so that the Application Note now reads:
AEligibility for consideration under 18 U.S.C. ' 3582(c)(2) is
triggered only by an amendment . . . that lowers the applicable
guideline range (i.e., the guideline range that corresponds to the
offense level and criminal 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. ' 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A) (2011) (emphasis added).
8