Case: 12-12765 Date Filed: 02/11/2013 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-12765
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:06-cr-00062-MCR-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TABITHA DIXON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(February 11, 2013)
Before CARNES, BARKETT, and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Tabitha Dixon, a federal prisoner who pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute
and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and knowingly using and
Case: 12-12765 Date Filed: 02/11/2013 Page: 2 of 8
carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, appeals, pro
se, the district court’s denial of her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence
reduction based on Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines. On appeal,
Dixon argues that she was entitled to a sentence reduction based on her newly
amended guideline range and that the district court failed to consider that her
statutory mandatory minimum sentence was also amended by the Fair Sentencing
Act of 2010 (“FSA”). For the reasons set forth below, we vacate and remand for
the district court to reconsider whether a sentence reduction is warranted.
I.
In 2006, Dixon pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
500 grams or more of cocaine and 5 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(ii), (b)(1)(B)(iii) and 846 (“Count One”), and
carrying and use of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (“Count Two”).
The presentence investigation report (“PSI”) indicated that Dixon was
responsible for 2.8 kilograms of cocaine base. Because the drug quantity exceeded
1.5 kilograms of cocaine base, the probation officer assigned a base offense level
of 38 pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). After a three-level reduction for acceptance
of responsibility, Dixon’s total offense level was 35. The offense level of 35 and
her criminal history category of I resulted in a guideline range of 168 to 210
2
Case: 12-12765 Date Filed: 02/11/2013 Page: 3 of 8
months’ imprisonment. Further, as to Count One, Dixon faced a mandatory
minimum 60-month sentence, and as to Count Two, she faced a mandatory
consecutive 60-month sentence.
Prior to sentencing, the government filed a motion for a sentence reduction
under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, indicating that Dixon had provided substantial assistance
to the government. In consideration of Dixon’s cooperation, the court granted a
substantial assistance reduction as to the drug charge (Count One), but denied a
reduction as to the firearm charge (Count Two). The court noted that, absent the
§ 5K1.1 motion, it would have imposed a sentence “somewhere in the mid[-]point”
of Dixon’s guideline range of 168 to 210 months’ imprisonment, “which probably
would have been about 180 months.” Ultimately, in August 2006, the court
imposed a 120-month total sentence, consisting of a 60-month sentence as to Count
One with a mandatory consecutive 60-month sentence as to Count Two.
In March 2008, Dixon filed a § 3582(c)(2) motion based on Amendment 706
to the Sentencing Guidelines. Through counsel, she argued that Amendment 706
lowered her base offense level from 38 to 36, which resulted in a lower guideline
range of 135 to 168 months’ imprisonment.
In December 2008, the district court denied the § 3582(c)(2) motion. The
court noted that the “mid-point” of Dixon’s reduced guideline range of 135 to 168
months’ imprisonment was still 30 months greater than the sentence that she
3
Case: 12-12765 Date Filed: 02/11/2013 Page: 4 of 8
received after her substantial assistance reduction. The court found that, “[b]ased
on the facts supporting the original sentence, including [Dixon’s] substantial
assistance, the court would not have reduced [her] sentence below 120 months
even after [the] application of Amendment 706.”
In November 2011, Dixon filed the instant pro se § 3582(c)(2) motion based
on Amendment 750. In her motion, Dixon argued that she should receive a
sentence reduction based on post-sentencing, retroactive changes to the drug
quantity tables in § 2D1.1. Dixon noted that she initially received a 67% reduction
in her sentence as to the drug charge based on the government’s § 5K1.1 motion.
She thus asserted that, as to the drug charge, she was entitled to a comparable 67%
reduction below her amended guideline range. Accordingly, she requested that the
district court reduce her sentence to 90 months’ imprisonment.
The district court denied Dixon’s § 3582(c)(2) motion, noting that it had
considered the policy statement set forth in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 and the § 3553(a)
sentencing factors, “to the extent they are applicable.” Additionally, without
further explanation, the court found that Amendment 750 did not result in a change
to Dixon’s “guideline range and the previous sentence imposed.”
II.
4
Case: 12-12765 Date Filed: 02/11/2013 Page: 5 of 8
We review de novo the district court’s determination that a defendant is not
eligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Glover, 686
F.3d 1203, 1206 (11th Cir. 2012).
“As a general rule, district courts may not modify a term of imprisonment
once it has been imposed, except in specific circumstances delineated in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c).” United States v. Williams, 549 F.3d 1337, 1339 (11th Cir. 2008). One
such exception is for 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.” Id. (quotation omitted); see also 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2). In such a case, “the court may reduce the term of imprisonment,
after considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to the extent that they
are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements
issued by the Sentencing Commission.” Williams, 549 F.3d at 1339 (quotation and
alteration omitted); see 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines, made retroactively applicable
by Amendment 759, makes permanent the temporary emergency Amendment 748,
which revised the crack cocaine quantity tables listed in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)
pursuant to the FSA. See U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 750, Reason for Amend.;
U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 759. Subsection 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) of the Sentencing
Guidelines, as revised by Amendment 759, states:
5
Case: 12-12765 Date Filed: 02/11/2013 Page: 6 of 8
Exception for Substantial Assistance.—If the term of imprisonment
imposed was less than the term of imprisonment provided by the
guideline range applicable to the defendant at the time of sentencing
pursuant to a government motion to reflect the defendant’s substantial
assistance to authorities, a reduction comparably less than the
amended guideline range determined under subdivision (1) of this
subsection may be appropriate.
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) (2011). Government motions for substantial
assistance under § 5K1.1 are explicitly listed as being included within the
exception. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.3).
Nevertheless, in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding, the district court lacks the
authority to reduce a defendant’s sentence when the amended guideline “does not
have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range.” U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). A reduction is not authorized if the amendment does not lower
a defendant’s applicable guidelines 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, comment. (n.1(A)).
As an initial matter, because it appears that the district court erred for the
reasons discussed below, we decline to review the merits of Dixon’s FSA
argument.
In denying Dixon’s § 3582(c)(2) motion, the district court clearly erred in
concluding that Amendment 750 did not have the effect of reducing her guideline
range. Dixon’s original base offense level was 38, and after a 3-level reduction for
6
Case: 12-12765 Date Filed: 02/11/2013 Page: 7 of 8
acceptance of responsibility, she was assigned a total offense level of 35. Her
resulting guideline range was 168 to 210 months’ imprisonment as to the drug
count with a 60-month mandatory consecutive sentence as to the firearm count.
Had Amendment 750 been in effect at the time of Dixon’s sentencing, she would
have received a base offense level of 36 based on the 2.8 kilograms of cocaine base
for which she was held responsible. See U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 750, Pt. A,
cross referencing U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 748; U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(2) (2011).
After the reduction for acceptance of responsibility, her total offense level would
have been 33, which, combined with her criminal history category of I, would have
yielded a reduced guideline range of 135 to 168 months’ imprisonment as to the
drug count.
The government suggests that, even though Dixon’s earlier motion for a
sentence reduction based on Amendment 706 was denied, her base offense level
was reduced to 36 under that Amendment. Thus, the government contends that
Dixon’s instant § 3582(c)(2) motion was properly denied because Amendment 750
did not provide for a further reduction in her base offense level. However, because
the district court denied Dixon’s § 3582(c)(2) motion based on Amendment 706,
her base offense level as of her last sentencing proceeding was 38. In denying her
prior § 3582(c)(2) motion, the district court found that, based on the underlying
facts and circumstances of the case, Dixon was not entitled to a further reduction
7
Case: 12-12765 Date Filed: 02/11/2013 Page: 8 of 8
below the sentence that she received for her substantial assistance. In considering,
upon remand, whether to grant a sentence reduction based on Amendment 750, the
district court may reach a similar conclusion that a further sentence reduction is not
warranted. Alternatively, the district court may decline to grant Dixon a
comparable substantial assistance reduction below her amended guideline range
because, regardless of the applicable guideline range, her assistance to the
government did not warrant a sentence below the 60-month mandatory minimum
sentence applicable to Count One. However, in denying the instant § 3582(c)(2)
motion, the district court did not address these issues because it appears to have
erroneously determined that Amendment 750 did not have the effect of lowering
Dixon’s applicable guideline range. For the foregoing reasons, we vacate and
remand to the district court to reconsider whether Dixon was entitled to a sentence
reduction comparable to the reduction that she received pursuant to the
government’s § 5K1.1 motion.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
8