United States v. Troy Simon , 637 F. App'x 563 ( 2016 )

Case: 15-13456 Date Filed: 01/28/2016 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-13456
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:12-cr-60037-JIC-4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TROY SIMON,
a.k.a. Sean Robinson,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(January 28, 2016)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JILL PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-13456 Date Filed: 01/28/2016 Page: 2 of 6
Troy Simon, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment
782 of the Sentencing Guidelines. After careful review, we affirm.
I.
Simon pled guilty to charges of (1) conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and
846 and (2) illegal reentry after removal from the United States in violation of 8
U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). Because he pled guilty to a felony controlled
substance offense and had two prior felony convictions for either a crime of
violence or a controlled substance offense, Simon qualified as a career offender
under § 4B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. At the time Simon entered into the
plea agreement, both he and the government were aware that he qualified as a
career offender under the guidelines. The parties agreed to request a sentence in
the range of 92 to 115 months’ imprisonment, which was below the guidelines
range. 1
1
In the plea agreement, Simon acknowledged that the district court was “under no
obligation to impose a sentence that is below the advisory guidelines range.” Plea Agreement at
3 (Doc. 244). The citation to “Doc.” refers to the docket entry in the district court record in this
case.
2
Case: 15-13456 Date Filed: 01/28/2016 Page: 3 of 6
At sentencing, the district court considered Simon’s career offender status,
calculating his guidelines range as 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment. 2 The district
court considered the parties’ request for a sentence of 92 to 115 months, varied
downward from the guidelines range, and imposed a sentence of 92 months’
imprisonment.
Simon recently moved the district court to reduce his sentence under
Amendment 782, which he argued reduced his base offense level. The district
court denied his motion, concluding that it lacked authority to resentence Simon
because Amendment 782 did not change Simon’s guidelines range, which was
calculated based on his career offender status. This is Simon’s appeal.
II.
We review de novo a district court’s legal conclusions regarding its authority
under the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Davis, 587 F.3d 1300, 1303
(11th Cir. 2009).
III.
Under § 3582(c)(2), a district court may reduce the prison sentence of a
“defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a
sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
2
The government asserts that if Simon did not have career offender status, his guidelines
range, calculated based on the quantity of marijuana involved and his reentry offense, would
have been 110 to 137 months’ imprisonment.
3
Case: 15-13456 Date Filed: 01/28/2016 Page: 4 of 6
Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1). “The
purpose of § 3582(c)(2) is to give a defendant the benefit of a retroactively
applicable amendment to the guidelines.” United States v. Glover, 686 F.3d 1203,
1206 (11th Cir. 2012).
However, the grounds upon which a district court may reduce a defendant’s
sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) “are quite narrow.” United States v. Berry,
701 F.3d 374, 376 (11th Cir. 2012). For a defendant to be eligible for such a
reduction, the Sentencing Commission must have amended the guideline at issue,
that amendment must have lowered the defendant’s sentencing range, and the
amendment must also be listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d), making it apply
retroactively. See Berry, 701 F.3d at 376 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10(a)(1) & cmt. n.1(A)).
The Sentencing Guidelines explain that the amendment must lower the
“applicable guideline range,” which is “the guideline range that corresponds to the
offense level and criminal history category determined pursuant to 1B1.1(a), which
is determined before consideration of . . . any variance.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt.
n.1(a). Additionally, when a defendant’s offense level was determined by career
offender status under § 4B1.1 rather than the quantity of the drugs involved in an
offense under § 2D1.1, the defendant is ineligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction
based on a subsequent amendment to the offense levels in § 2D1.1. This is
4
Case: 15-13456 Date Filed: 01/28/2016 Page: 5 of 6
because the amendment would not lower the sentencing range upon which the
defendant’s sentence was based. See United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1327
(11th Cir. 2008).
The district court committed no error in denying Simon a sentence reduction
based on Amendment 782. Amendment 782 reduced the base offense level for
most drug sentences calculated pursuant to the Drug Quantity Table, U.S.S.G.
§ 2D1.1(c). U.S.S.G. App. C., amend. 782. Amendment 782 is listed in
§ 1B1.10(d), making it apply retroactively. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d). Thus,
Amendment 782 may serve, when applicable, as the basis for a sentence reduction.
The problem for Simon is that Amendment 782 did not lower his applicable
guidelines range, which was calculated using the offense level for career offenders
set forth § 4B1.1, not the offense level for drug quantity set forth in § 2D1.1(c).
Simon argues that he was not sentenced as a career offender because the
district court varied downward from the guidelines range the court calculated based
on § 4B1.1. It is immaterial, however, that after calculating the sentencing range
based on Simon’s career offender status, the district court varied downward
substantially in imposing Simon’s sentence. The advisory guidelines range at issue
in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding is the range determined prior to any departures or
variances by the district court. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(a). Accordingly,
we conclude that Simon is ineligible for relief under § 3582(c)(2).
5
Case: 15-13456 Date Filed: 01/28/2016 Page: 6 of 6
IV.
Because the district court lacked authority to reduce Simon’s sentence under
§ 3582(c)(2), we affirm the district court’s denial of Simon’s motion.
AFFIRMED.
6