Case: 12-12446 Date Filed: 03/13/2013 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-12446
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:06-cr-00178-GAP-GJK-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LETARIUS R. JOHNSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(March 13, 2013)
Before CARNES, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-12446 Date Filed: 03/13/2013 Page: 2 of 7
Letarius Johnson, a federal prisoner convicted of a crack cocaine offense,
appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce
his 120-month prison term based on Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines,
which revised the crack cocaine quantity tables in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. See U.S.S.G.
App. C, amend. 750 (Nov. 2011). Among other things, Defendant Johnson does
not dispute that his prior convictions qualify him as a career offender under
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. After review, we affirm. 1
I. SECTION 3582(c)(2)
Pursuant to § 3582(c)(2), the district court may reduce a defendant’s prison
term if the defendant was “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).” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); see also
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1). However, “[w]here a retroactively applicable guideline
amendment reduces a defendant’s base offense level, but does not alter the
sentencing range upon which his or her sentence was based, § 3582(c)(2) does not
authorize a reduction in sentence.” United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1330
(11th Cir. 2008); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) (providing that a
1
“We review de novo a district court’s conclusions about the scope of its legal authority
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).” United States v. James, 548 F.3d 983, 984 (11th Cir. 2008)
(quotation marks omitted).
2
Case: 12-12446 Date Filed: 03/13/2013 Page: 3 of 7
§ 3582(c)(2) reduction is not authorized if the amendment “does not have the effect
of lowering the defendant’s applicable guidelines range”).
A sentence reduction is not authorized if the amendment does not lower the
defendant’s applicable guidelines range “because of the operation of another
guideline or statutory provision.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A). As such, when
a crack cocaine defendant’s offense level was determined by the career offender
provision, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, rather than § 2D1.1(c), the defendant is not eligible
for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction based on amendments to the crack cocaine offense
levels in § 2D1.1(c) because those amendments did not lower the sentencing range
upon which the defendant’s sentence was based. Moore, 541 F.3d at 1327
(involving Amendment 706).
II. JOHNSON’S ORIGINAL SENTENCE
At his sentencing, Johnson was designated a career offender, and his base
offense level of 37 was based on U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, not on the drug quantity tables
in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). After a three-level reduction for acceptance of
responsibility, Johnson’s total offense level was 34. With a criminal history
category of VI, Johnson’s advisory guidelines range was 262 to 327 months’
imprisonment.
The district court, however, granted Johnson two downward departures: (1)
a five-offense-level downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 for substantial
3
Case: 12-12446 Date Filed: 03/13/2013 Page: 4 of 7
assistance; and (2) a one-criminal-history-category downward departure under
U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b) because his criminal history category over-represented his
criminal history. These two departures changed Johnson’s advisory guidelines
range to 140 to 175 months.
The district court then granted Johnson a downward variance from that 140-
to-175-months range and imposed a 120-month sentence. Johnson did not appeal
his 120-month sentence.
III. JOHNSON’S § 3582(c)(2) MOTION BASED ON AMENDMENT 750
In December 2011, Johnson filed a § 3582(c)(2) motion seeking a further
reduction of his sentence based on Amendment 750, which the district court
denied.
Because Johnson was designated a career offender, we agree with the district
court that Amendment 750 did not have any effect on Johnson’s offense level or
his applicable guidelines range of 262 to 327 months. Thus, under Moore, the
district court did not have the authority to grant Johnson’s § 3582(c)(2) motion.
See Moore, 541 F.3d at 1327-28. Although Johnson argues that Moore was
abrogated by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Freeman v. United States, 564
U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (2011), this Court has rejected this argument. See
United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317, 1320-21 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, __ U.S.
4
Case: 12-12446 Date Filed: 03/13/2013 Page: 5 of 7
__, 133 S. Ct. 568 (2012) (concluding that, even after Freeman, Moore remains
binding precedent in our Circuit).
We recognize that Johnson also argues that, despite his admitted career
offender status, he is still eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction because his ultimate
120-month sentence was not “based on” his career offender range of 267 to 327
months. Johnson calculates what his original base offense level and guidelines
range would have been, not as a career offender, but under the drug quantity tables
in § 2D1.1(c). Johnson calculates his base offense level as 30 under the drug
quantity tables, which, with his acceptance of responsibility reduction and his
original criminal history category of V, yields an original advisory guidelines
range of 120 to 150 months. Johnson argues that by granting him two downward
departures and a downward variance and ultimately sentencing him within that
120-to-150-month range, the sentencing court implicitly found that Johnson was
not a career offender, and thus he should benefit from Amendment 750.
Johnson’s argument lacks merit for several reasons. First, Johnson’s
argument ignores his status as a career offender, which was the basis of his 262 to
327 month advisory guidelines range. The only way Johnson got the 120-month
sentence was due to downward departures and a variance. Second, and in any
event, under the commentary to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, the “applicable guideline
range” that must be lowered in order to be eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction is
5
Case: 12-12446 Date Filed: 03/13/2013 Page: 6 of 7
“the guideline range that corresponds to the offense level and criminal history
category determined . . . before consideration of any departure provision in the
Guidelines Manual or any variance.” See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, cmt. n.1(A)
(emphasis added); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (requiring any reduction to be
“consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing
Commission”).2
Third, we also reject Johnson’s argument that he falls within any potential
exception discussed in dicta in Moore. 3 Here, Johnson’s § 4A1.3(b) criminal
history downward departure was not to his offense level, but to his criminal history
category. Thus, the possible exception discussed in Moore does not apply to
Johnson. See Moore, 541 F.3d at 1329-31. In any event, Moore was decided in
2008, and the guidelines commentary, effective November 1, 2011, makes clear
that to be eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction, the amendment must lower the
guidelines range determined before any departure or variance. See U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10, cmt. n.1(A).
2
The Sentencing Commission amended the commentary to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 in
Amendment 759, effective November 1, 2011, before Johnson’s § 3582(c)(2) motion was filed in
December 2011. U.S.S.G. App. C, amend. 759 (Nov. 2011).
3
There is a threshold question of whether Moore created any exception to the general rule
that crack cocaine defendants sentenced as career offenders are ineligible for § 3582(c)(2)
sentence reductions based on recent amendments to the crack cocaine offense levels in
§ 2D1.1(c), such as Amendments 706 and 750. Moore simply distinguished two district court
cases in other Circuits in which career-offender defendants received § 4A1.3 criminal history
downward departures that directly reduced their offense levels (not their criminal history
category) and also received § 3582(c)(2) sentence reductions based on Amendment 706. See
Moore, 541 F.3d at 1329-31.
6
Case: 12-12446 Date Filed: 03/13/2013 Page: 7 of 7
In sum, because Johnson’s advisory guidelines range was based on his
career offender status, Johnson’s sentence was not “based on” a subsequently
lowered sentencing range, as required by § 3582(c)(2). Accordingly, the district
court lacked the authority to grant Johnson’s § 3582(c)(2) motion.
AFFIRMED.
7