United States v. David Lee Hall , 681 F. App'x 793 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •            Case: 16-10504   Date Filed: 03/01/2017   Page: 1 of 7
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 16-10504
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 2:92-cr-00118-UA-1
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    DAVID LEE HALL,
    JOSEPH HALL,
    Defendants-Appellants.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Florida
    ________________________
    (March 1, 2017)
    Before HULL, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Case: 16-10504       Date Filed: 03/01/2017        Page: 2 of 7
    Defendants David Hall (“David”) and Joseph Hall (“Joseph”) are federal
    prisoners convicted of crack cocaine offenses. The defendants, proceeding pro se,
    jointly appeal the district court’s denial of their 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(2) motions for
    sentence reductions based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The
    district court concluded that the defendants were ineligible for sentence reductions
    because, in light of the sentencing court’s finding that each defendant was
    responsible for in excess of 50 kilograms of crack cocaine, Amendment 782 did
    not lower the defendants’ sentencing ranges. The district court also denied the
    defendants’ joint motion for reconsideration. After review, we affirm. 1
    I. BACKGROUND FACTS
    In 1993, a jury convicted the defendants David and Joseph, who are
    brothers, with conspiring to possess, and possessing, cocaine base with intent to
    distribute it. At separate sentencing hearings, the district court found that each
    defendant was responsible for more than 50 kilograms of crack cocaine. Thus,
    each defendant’s original base offense level was 42 under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)’s
    Drug Quantity Table. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1)(1993) (assigning a base offense
    level of 42 for offenses involving 15 kilograms or more of cocaine base).
    1
    This Court reviews de novo the district court’s legal conclusions regarding the scope of
    its authority under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(2) and for clear error its factual findings underlying those
    legal conclusions. United States v. Davis, 
    587 F.3d 1300
    , 1303 (11th Cir. 2009).
    2
    Case: 16-10504     Date Filed: 03/01/2017    Page: 3 of 7
    As to David Hall, the district court: (1) imposed a four-level leadership role
    increase for an adjusted offense level of 46; (2) reduced the total offense level to
    43 pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5A1.1; and (3) calculated a criminal history category of
    I, which resulted in a guidelines range of life imprisonment. The district court
    imposed two concurrent life sentences.
    As to Joseph Hall, the district court: (1) imposed no adjustments, for an
    adjusted offense level of 42; and (2) calculated a criminal history category of IV,
    which resulted in a guidelines range of 360 months to life imprisonment. The
    district court imposed concurrent 360-month sentences.
    In 1996, both defendants filed § 3582(c)(2) motions based on Amendment
    505, which capped the base offense level at 38 for offenses involving 1.5
    kilograms or more of cocaine base. See U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 505 (1994). At
    that time, the district court concluded that based on Amendment 505, both
    defendants were “entitled to a base offense level of 38.” As to David Hall, the
    district court recalculated his guidelines range as 360 months to life, granted the
    § 3582(c)(2) motion, and imposed a new 360-month sentence. As to Joseph Hall,
    the district court recalculated his guidelines range as 324 months to 405 months’
    imprisonment, but denied the § 3582(c)(2) motion as a matter of discretion, which
    left Joseph’s original 360-month sentence intact.
    3
    Case: 16-10504     Date Filed: 03/01/2017    Page: 4 of 7
    In 2008, the defendants, along with other codefendants, filed a joint
    § 3582(c)(2) motion based on Amendment 706. Amendment 706, among other
    things, increased the amount of cocaine base needed to trigger a base offense level
    of 38 from “1.5 kilograms or more” to “4.5 kilograms or more.” See U.S.S.G. app.
    c., amend 706 (2007). The district court denied the 2008 motion as to David and
    Joseph. The district court concluded that the defendants were ineligible for
    sentence reductions because Amendment 706 did not lower either defendant’s
    applicable guidelines range. The district court noted that both defendants were
    held responsible at sentencing for 50 kilograms of cocaine base, far more than the
    4.5 kilograms of cocaine base needed to trigger the highest base offense level of 38
    under Amendment 706.
    This Court affirmed the district court’s ruling on appeal, concluding that the
    defendants were ineligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief “[b]ecause the district court
    found at sentencing that each of the movants was responsible for more than 4.5
    kilograms of crack cocaine,” the amount needed to trigger a base offense level of
    38 at that time. See United States v. Caldwell, 381 F. App’x 933, 935 (11th Cir.
    2010). In so doing, this Court noted that the district court had determined at the
    4
    Case: 16-10504       Date Filed: 03/01/2017      Page: 5 of 7
    original sentencings that both David and Joseph were responsible for more than 50
    kilograms of crack cocaine. Id. at 934 n.2.2
    II. DEFENDANTS’ CURRENT SECTION 3582(c)(2) MOTIONS
    A district court may reduce a term of imprisonment only if it was based on a
    sentencing range that was subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission.
    
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(2); see also United States v. Lawson, 
    686 F.3d 1317
    , 1319
    (11th Cir. 2012); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). Amendment 782, which is
    retroactive, reduced by 2 levels the base offense levels for most drug offenses. See
    U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 782 (2014). Amendment 782 increased the amount of
    crack cocaine necessary to qualify for the highest base offense level of 38 to 25.2
    kilograms or more. Compare U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(5),(c)(1) (2011), with U.S.S.G.
    § (a)(5), (c)(1) (2014); see also U.S.S.G. app. C. amend. 782.
    Here, the district court properly denied the defendants’ § 3582(c)(2)
    motions. As discussed above, the original sentencing court found that each
    defendant was responsible for more than 50 kilograms of cocaine base. Moreover,
    each defendant’s last-applied base offense level was level 38, the highest base
    offense level for crack cocaine offenses. After Amendment 782, the more than 50
    2
    The government argues that under the law-of-the-case doctrine, we are bound by
    Caldwell’s finding in footnote 2 that each defendant was responsible for more than 50 kilograms.
    It is not clear that footnote 2 was necessary to the holding in Caldwell. See United States v.
    Anderson, 
    772 F.3d 662
    , 668 (11th Cir. 2014). In any event, even without the law-of-the-case
    doctrine, we conclude for the reasons that follow that the district court properly denied the
    defendants’ § 3582(c)(2) motions based on Amendment 782.
    5
    Case: 16-10504        Date Filed: 03/01/2017      Page: 6 of 7
    kilograms of crack cocaine attributed to each defendant still results in a base
    offense level of 38. See U.S.S.G. app. C, amend 782; Id. § 2D1.1(c)(1) (assigning
    a base offense level of 38 for cocaine base offenses involving 25.2 kilograms or
    more). Accordingly, each defendant’s applicable guidelines range remains the
    same. Because Amendment 782 did not have the effect of lowering either
    defendant’s last-applied guidelines range, the district court lacked authority to
    reduce their sentences pursuant to § 3582(c)(2).
    There is no merit to the defendants’ argument that the sentencing court
    attributed to them only 15 kilograms of crack cocaine. The defendants’ respective
    presentence investigation reports (“PSI”) stated that each defendant was
    responsible for “well over” 15 kilograms of crack cocaine. After each defendant
    objected to his PSI’s drug quantity, the district court overruled the objection and
    made an explicit finding that each defendant’s offenses involved more than 50
    kilograms of crack cocaine. 3
    Moreover, the sentencing court’s drug quantity finding was sufficiently
    specific to support the district court’s denial of the defendants’ § 3582(c)(2)
    motions. After Amendment 782, any quantity of crack cocaine in excess of 25.2
    kilograms qualifies for a base offense level of 38. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(5),
    3
    There is also no merit to the defendants’ argument that the drug quantities in the
    defendants’ PSIs and the sentencing court’s drug quantity findings at the original sentencing
    hearing are inconsistent. The sentencing court’s finding of more than 50 kilograms is in fact
    “well over 15 kilograms,” as stated in the PSIs.
    6
    Case: 16-10504     Date Filed: 03/01/2017    Page: 7 of 7
    (c)(1) (2015). A finding of “more than 50 kilograms” is sufficient to show that
    both defendants still qualify for a base offense level of 38. The district court was
    not required to make any further drug quantity determinations in the § 3582(c)(2)
    proceedings. Cf. United States v. Hamilton, 
    715 F.3d 328
    , 340 (11th Cir. 2013)
    (vacating a denial of a § 3582(c)(2) motion when it was not clear from the record
    what drug quantity finding the court made at the original sentencing).
    For all these reasons, the district court properly denied the defendants’
    § 3582(c)(2) motions for sentence reductions based on Amendment 782.
    AFFIRMED.
    7
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-10504

Citation Numbers: 681 F. App'x 793

Filed Date: 3/1/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023