UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-50532
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
JOHN C. MUELLER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
February 19, 1999
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
ROBERT M. PARKER, Circuit Judge:
John C. Mueller (“Mueller”) appeals from an order denying a
motion to reduce his sentence filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2). We vacate and remand to the district court for further
proceedings.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
In 1989, Mueller pleaded guilty to the manufacture of
methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The pre-
1
sentence report (“PSR”) calculated Mueller's base offense level
based on “8.5 gallons of acetone and ether containing detectable
amounts of methamphetamine, two gallons of P2P [phenylacetone], and
two ounces of methamphetamine.” Using the 1988 sentencing
guidelines, the PSR concluded that his base offense level was 36.
A two-point increase was added for possession of a firearm. Thus,
the total offense level was 38, with a criminal history category of
I, resulting in a sentencing range of 235 to 293 months
imprisonment. The district court sentenced Mueller to a 240-month
jail term (the statutory maximum), three years' supervised release,
a $250,000 fine, and a $50 mandatory assessment.
Mueller appealed his conviction and sentence, which this court
affirmed. See United States v. Mueller, 902 F.2d 336 (5th Cir.
1990). Mueller also filed two 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions, which were
denied.
The Sentencing Commission promulgated amendment 484 to the
sentencing guidelines, effective November 1, 1993. Amendment 484
excludes from guideline calculations any waste products contained
in mixtures containing methamphetamine. See U.S.S.G., App. C,
amend. 484 (1997). In fact, Mueller's case was specifically cited
by Congress when it approved changes to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1),
which expressed Congress's intent to exclude the weight of the
carrier when calculating a sentence.
...[I]t makes little sense to weigh the waste material
used to manufacture controlled substances such as
2
methamphetamine. In U.S. v. Mueller, 1990 U.S. App.
Lexis 8344 (May 22, 1990)[902 F.2d 336], the Fifth
Circuit interpreted the phrase “mixture or substance” to
include 8.5 gallons of an acetone solution used to “wash”
a much smaller quantity of methamphetamine, and therefore
imposed a 20 year sentence after applying the drug
quantity table in section 2D1.1 of the sentencing
guidelines. Had the controlled substance been seized a
short time later, the “wash” solution would have been
discarded and the defendant would have received a much
different sentence. In a rational justice system, a
defendant's sentence should not turn so dramatically upon
a fortuitous circumstance such as the point of the
manufacturing process at which the controlled substance
is seized.
S. Rep. No. 101-476, 101st Cong., 2nd Sess at 171 (1990). This
amendment applies retroactively. See U.S.S.G. 1 1B1.10.
Arguing that amendment 484 should result in a reduced
sentence, Mueller filed a motion to modify his sentence pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The Probation Office prepared an addendum
to the original PSR using the 1994 edition of the guidelines to
calculate Mueller's guideline range. The Probation Office reasoned
that the 1994 edition ought to be used because the 1988 edition
“did not provide [base offense levels] for actual methamphetamine.”
The PSR addendum concluded that the recalculation of Mueller's
relevant conduct did not afford him any relief from his 240 month
sentence. Mueller was never given a copy of the addendum to review
so that he could file objections. On June 11, 1997, without
hearing, the district court summarily ordered that “[u]pon review
of the Defendant's Motion, the Government's response, the Probation
Office's Addendum to the Presentence Report and the entire case
3
file, the Court finds that Defendant's Motion should be denied.”
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2)
is discretionary, and, therefore, we review the district court's
determination for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Townsend,
55 F.3d 168, 170 (5th Cir. 1995).
OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW ADDENDUM TO PSR
This appeal presents a question which is res nova in the Fifth
Circuit: do the procedural rules requiring that the PSR be
furnished to a defendant in time to allow him to object to it apply
to a PSR addendum prepared in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding?
A defendant is entitled to view the PSR prior to the
sentencing hearing, in order to have the opportunity to file
objections to “any material information, sentencing
classifications, sentencing guideline ranges and policy statements
contained in or omitted from the presentence report.” FED. R. CRIM.
P. 32(b)(6)(A) & (B); see also United States v. Smith, 13 F.3d 860,
867 (5th Cir. 1994). This court has further determined that, in
the context of a motion to modify sentence filed pursuant to §
3582(c)(2), the defendant is entitled to review any new evidence
that is considered by the district court. See United States v.
Townsend, 55 F.3d 168, 172 (5th Cir. 1995). In Townsend, we
specifically declined to reach the question whether, in deciding a
§ 3582(c)(2) motion, the district court must employ procedures
4
which “match” those in an initial sentencing determination.
Rather, we held that while the district court had the discretion to
consider testimony from Townsend's co-defendant's re-sentencing
hearing, Townsend “must have notice that the court is considering
the testimony such that he will have the opportunity to respond to
that testimony.” Id. We conclude that Townsend's analysis
controls the question presented by Mueller. The district court
certainly has the discretion to consider a PSR addendum in
resolving a § 3582(c)(2) motion if it determines that such an
addendum would be helpful. However, a defendant must have notice
of the contents of the addendum and notice that the court is
considering it such that he will have the opportunity to respond to
or contest it. See id. Compliance with the dictates of Rule 32
regarding the disclosure of PSRs, which Mueller advocates is
required, would certainly satisfy this requirement. However, we
are not faced with the question, nor do we purport to answer,
whether disclosure that fails to meet the strict timing dictates of
Rule 32 might nevertheless afford a defendant sufficient
opportunity to respond in a particular circumstance.
We must next determine whether the district court's failure to
disclose the addendum to Mueller was harmless. See United States
v. Gonzalez-Balderas, 105 F.3d 981, 984 (5th Cir. 1997)(affirming
the denial of a § 3582(c)(2) motion when the district court would
have been bound to resentence movant to the same term -- life
5
imprisonment -- even if his arguments concerning district court's
alleged errors prevailed). Mueller argues that he would have
objected to the Probation Office's use of the 1994 edition of the
sentencing guidelines in the addendum had he had the opportunity to
review it. Mueller contends that the use of the wrong edition of
the Sentencing Guidelines, coupled with the district court's
failure to disclose the content of the PSR addendum, amounts to
abuse of discretion and requires the district court's order to be
vacated.
WHICH EDITION OF THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES APPLIES?
We review de novo the district court's legal determinations
regarding the application of sentencing guidelines. See United
States v. Sherrod, 964 F.2d 1501, 1506 (5th Cir. 1992).
The sentencing commission has promulgated policy statements
regarding a court's consideration of a § 3582(c)(2) motion.
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. The sentencing court is required to consider
these policy statements when addressing a defendant's motion to
reduce sentence. See United States v. Townsend, 55 F.3d 168, 171-
72 (5th Cir. 1995). In the case of a retroactively applied
amendment to the guidelines, § 1B1.10(b) instructs the court to
consider the sentence it would have imposed had the amendment been
in effect at the time the defendant was sentenced. See United
States v. Gonzalez-Balderas, 105 F.3d 981, 982 (5th Cir. 1997).
The addendum to the PSR, relied on by the district court,
6
applied amendment 484 but used the 1994 edition of the sentencing
guidelines, resulting in a guideline range that was considerably
longer than the same calculation using the 1988 edition, which was
in effect at the time Mueller was sentenced. We therefore conclude
that we must vacate the district court's order and remand this case
for further proceedings. On remand, the district court should
calculate Mueller's guideline range applying amendment 484 to the
1988 edition of the sentencing guidelines. In so holding, we do
not imply that the district court lacks discretion to consider
appropriate factors, such as those set forth in 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a),1 in making its decision whether to reduce Mueller's
sentence of imprisonment.
CONCLUSION
Finding that the district court abused its discretion in
denying Mueller's motion without disclosing the flawed PSR addendum
to him, we VACATE the order of the district court and REMAND this
case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
1
In making the decision as to whether to reduce a sentence of
imprisonment, § 3582(c)(2) provides for consideration of the
factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Those factors include:
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence
imposed to accomplish certain aims, such as, to reflect the
seriousness of the offense, to provide just punishment, to afford
adequate deterrence, or to protect the public; (3) the kinds of
sentences available; (4) the applicable sentencing range under the
guidelines; (5) any pertinent Sentencing Commission policy
statements; (6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities
among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of
similar conduct; and (7) the need to provide restitution to
victims. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
7
VACATED and REMANDED.
8