Case: 15-14445 Date Filed: 10/06/2016 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-14445
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:99-cr-14045-KMM-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DALE JACKSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(October 6, 2016)
Before JORDAN, JULIE CARNES and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-14445 Date Filed: 10/06/2016 Page: 2 of 5
Dale Jackson, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district
court’s September 2015 denial of his construed motions for reconsideration of the
court’s January 2015 order denying his request to reduce his sentence under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Jackson
contends the district court abused its discretion and committed clear error when it
determined Jackson’s drug quantity made him ineligible for relief under
Amendment 782 and that he is entitled to reconsideration. 1 After review, 2 we
vacate the district court’s September 2015 order and remand for further
proceedings.
I. DISCUSSION
The Government contends Jackson failed timely to appeal the district court’s
January 2015 order denying his motion for a sentence reduction, and that the law-
of-the-case doctrine ordinarily applies when a party had the opportunity to appeal a
district court’s ruling on an issue but did not do so. United States v. Escobar-
Urrego, 110 F.3d 1556, 1560–61 (11th Cir. 1997). Although both assertions are
true, the law of the case does not apply when “the decision was clearly erroneous
and would cause manifest injustice.” Id. at 1561 (quotation omitted). We have
considered “manifest injustice” to be synonymous with the plain error standard of
1
We liberally construe pro se pleadings. United States v. Webb, 565 F.3d 789, 792 (11th
Cir. 2009).
2
We review a district court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration in a criminal action
for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Simms, 385 F.3d 1347, 1356 (11th Cir. 2004).
2
Case: 15-14445 Date Filed: 10/06/2016 Page: 3 of 5
review, such that “[t]o demonstrate manifest injustice, a petitioner must
demonstrate (1) that there was error; (2) that was plain; (3) that affected his
substantial rights; and (4) that affected the fundamental fairness of the
proceedings.” United States v. Quintana, 300 F.3d 1227, 1232 (11th Cir. 2002).
The district court’s January 2015 order constituted plain error. It stated
Jackson was “not eligible for relief under Amendment 782” because the “[l]arge
quantity of drugs [kept the] basic offense level at 38.” To the contrary, under
Amendment 782, Jackson’s 75,952.5 kilograms of marijuana should have resulted
in a base offense level of 36. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1) (base level of 36 applies
for drug quantities between 30,000 and 90,000 kilograms of marijuana); see also
United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780 (11th Cir. 2000) (holding when the
district court considers a § 3582(c)(2) motion, it must first recalculate the guideline
range under the amended Guidelines); United States v. Bennett, 472 F.3d 825, 834
(11th Cir. 2006) (finding miscalculation of the defendant’s offense level was plain
error).
The correct calculation would have lowered Jackson’s applicable Guidelines
range. “[A] defendant can rely on the application of an incorrect Guidelines range
to show an effect on his substantial rights,” Molina-Martinez v. United States,
136 S. Ct. 1338, 1348 (2016), even if the defendant’s ultimate sentence falls within
both the incorrect and correct guideline range, id. at 1345–46. Because the
3
Case: 15-14445 Date Filed: 10/06/2016 Page: 4 of 5
Guidelines “inform and instruct the district court’s determination of an appropriate
sentence,” in the usual case, “the systemic function of the selected Guidelines will
affect the sentence.” Id. at 1346. Without the benefit of a lower guidelines range
to guide the district court in its determination whether to grant his § 3582(c)(2)
motion, Jackson’s substantial rights and the fundamental fairness of the proceeding
were affected. See id. at 1345 (“The Guidelines’ central role in sentencing means
that an error related to the Guidelines can be particularly serious.”).
The district court’s failure in its January 2015 order to acknowledge the
correct amended Guidelines range was clearly erroneous and would result in
manifest injustice; as a result, the law of the case does not bar the court from
reconsidering Jackson’s initial motion. See Quintana, 300 F.3d at 1232. Thus, the
district court abused its discretion in its September 2015 denial of Jackson’s
motion for reconsideration because its finding that Jackson “[did] not establish any
of the grounds justifying reconsideration” was also clearly erroneous. See United
States v. Izquierdo, 448 F.3d 1269, 1276 (11th Cir. 2006) (“A district court abuses
its discretion if it fails to apply the proper legal standard or to follow proper
procedures in making the determination, or makes findings of fact that are clearly
erroneous.”) (quotation omitted).
II. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order denying Jackson’s motions
4
Case: 15-14445 Date Filed: 10/06/2016 Page: 5 of 5
for reconsideration and remand for the district court to consider whether to
exercise its discretion to reduce Jackson’s sentence in light of the amended
Guidelines range and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
5