United States v. Hamilton , 525 F. App'x 730 ( 2013 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS May 14, 2013
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
v. No. 12-5172
(D.C. No. 4:05-CR-00086-JHP-1)
DUANE HAMILTON, (N.D. Okla.)
Defendant–Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before LUCERO, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
Duane Hamilton, proceeding pro se, appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction of his sentence. Exercising jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, we remand with instructions to dismiss the motion for lack of jurisdiction.
* After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination
of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not
binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and
collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed.
R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
I
In 2006, Hamilton pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute fifty grams or
more of cocaine base and carrying firearms during and in relation to a drug trafficking
crime. Hamilton was classified as a career offender. A presentence investigation report
(“PSR”) calculated a criminal history category of VI and a total offense level of 34, based
on Hamilton’s career offender status. Hamilton’s Guidelines range was determined under
the “Career Offender” section of the Guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, by taking the greater
of (1) the Guidelines range that results from adding the mandatory minimum penalty of
the firearms count under § 924(c) to the minimum and maximum of the otherwise
applicable Guidelines range for the drug offense, calculated based on his total offense
level, and (2) the Guidelines range determined using the table set forth in § 4B1.1(c)(3).
The former yielded the greater Guidelines range: in this case, 322 to 387 months. The
district court imposed a sentence of 322 months.
We affirmed Hamilton’s sentence on direct appeal. United States v. Hamilton,
510 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 2007). Hamilton then sought a sentence reduction under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 706 of the Guidelines, which the district court
denied and we affirmed. United States v. Hamilton, 306 F. App’x 422 (10th Cir. 2009)
(unpublished).
Following the adoption of an amendment to the Guidelines that alters the offense
levels for certain crack offenses, see U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 750, Hamilton filed a
-2-
second motion under § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence. The district court denied the
motion on September 25, 2012. Citing to the original sentencing court’s undisputed
finding that Hamilton is a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, and pointing out that
Hamilton was sentenced prior to the effective date of the Fair Sentencing Act, the court
concluded that Hamilton was ineligible for a sentence reduction. Hamilton timely
appealed.
II
We review a district court’s interpretation of a statute or the Sentencing Guidelines
de novo. United States v. Smartt, 129 F.3d 539, 540 (10th Cir. 1997). We review a
district court’s decision to deny a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Sharkey, 543 F.3d 1236, 1238 (10th Cir. 2008). “An abuse
of discretion occurs when the district court bases its ruling on an erroneous conclusion of
law or relies on clearly erroneous fact findings.” Kiowa Indian Tribe of Okla. v. Hoover,
150 F.3d 1163, 1165 (10th Cir. 1998).
Although federal courts in general lack jurisdiction to reduce a term of
imprisonment once it has been imposed, United States v. Graham, 704 F.3d 1275, 1277
(10th Cir. 2013), “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” may be eligible for a reduction, “if such a reduction is consistent with
applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission,” § 3582(c)(2).
-3-
Amendment 750 retroactively “altered the drug-quantity tables in the Guidelines,
increasing the required quantity to be subject to each base offense level” in a manner
proportionate to the changes required by the Fair Sentencing Act. United States v.
Osborn, 679 F.3d 1193, 1194 (10th Cir. 2012) (quotation omitted); see also U.S.S.G. app.
C, amend. 750. However, Hamilton’s total offense level was based on his career offender
status, not his drug crime; thus, Amendment 750 did not affect Hamilton’s offense level
or the resulting Guidelines range. Cf. Sharkey, 543 F.3d at 1239 (holding that the district
court properly denied a § 3582(c)(2) motion because Amendment 706 had no effect on
the career offender guidelines under which defendant was sentenced). Thus a reduction
in Hamilton’s term of imprisonment, imposed as a result of his career offender status, is
not “consistent with” Amendment 750’s aim of modifying sentences based on cocaine
offenses and is not authorized by § 3582(c)(2). U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B).
Hamilton’s reliance on Freeman is also unavailing. Freeman v. United States, 131
S. Ct. 2685, 2690 (2011). In Freeman, the Supreme Court addressed whether defendants
who plead guilty under a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) agreement are entitled to seek a
reduction in sentence under § 3582(c)(2) when the otherwise-applicable Guideline is
retroactively amended. See id. at 2690-91. However, Hamilton did not enter into a Rule
11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement with the government, which permits the parties to “agree that
a specific sentence or sentencing range is the appropriate disposition of the case,” and
“binds the court [to the agreed-upon sentence] once the court accepts the plea
-4-
agreement.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C). Further, the district court did not grant a
departure or variance from the career offender sentencing range. Accordingly, we have
no reason to believe that its sentence was in any way based on the drug quantity tables
amended by Amendment 750. Freeman is thus inapplicable.
III
The district court denied Hamilton’s motion on the merits, not on the basis of lack
of jurisdiction. We agree with the district court that Hamilton’s sentence was based on
his career offender status and thus Amendment 750 is inapposite. But because
Hamilton’s sentence was not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been
lowered by the Sentencing Commission,” see § 3582(c)(2), the district court was without
jurisdiction to consider Hamilton’s § 3582(c)(2) motion. See United States v. Trujeque,
100 F.3d 869, 871 (10th Cir. 1996). We therefore REMAND with instructions to dismiss
the motion for lack of jurisdiction.
Entered for the Court
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-5-