United States v. Jasper Fulton , 602 F. App'x 495 ( 2015 )

Case: 14-12159 Date Filed: 03/05/2015 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-12159
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:13-cr-00026-CAR-CHW-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JASPER FULTON,
a.k.a. Jap,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(March 5, 2015)
Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-12159 Date Filed: 03/05/2015 Page: 2 of 6
Jasper Fulton appeals his 100-month sentence for distribution of cocaine
base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). On appeal, Fulton argues
that the district court procedurally erred by applying a career-offender-adjusted
base offense level of 32, pursuant to Sentencing Guideline § 4B1.1(b)(3). He
argues that, because it is ambiguous whether Congress intended for that
enhancement to apply here, the rule of lenity requires us to hold that the district
court should have applied a base offense level of 29, pursuant to USSG §
4B1.1(b)(4). Beyond that, Fulton argues that the district court erred by treating the
Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory rather than advisory, in violation of United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). After careful consideration,
we affirm.
I.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a “deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S. Ct.
586, 591 (2007). “On appeal, the party challenging the sentence bears the burden
to show that it is unreasonable.” United States v. Cubero, 754 F.3d 888, 893 (11th
Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 764 (2014). We must consider several factors to
determine if a sentence is procedurally reasonable, including whether the district
court improperly calculated the Guideline range, treated the Guidelines as
mandatory, or failed to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Gall, 552 U.S. at
2
Case: 14-12159 Date Filed: 03/05/2015 Page: 3 of 6
51, 128 S. Ct. at 597. “A court that misinterprets or misapplies the Guidelines
inherently abuses its discretion.” United States v. McQueen, 670 F.3d 1168, 1169
(11th Cir. 2012). As such, “we review the district court’s factual findings for clear
error, and its interpretation and application of the Guidelines de novo.” Id.II.
The district court did not procedurally err in applying a career-offender-
adjusted base offense level of 32. The career offender Guidelines found in Section
4B1.1(b) establish the base offense levels based on the maximum sentence
permitted under the statute of conviction. In relevant part, § 4B1.1(b) provides
that, if the statutory maximum for the conviction is “20 years or more, but less than
25 years,” offense level 32 applies to career offenders. Id. § 4B1.1(b)(3). By
contrast, if the statutory maximum is “15 years or more, but less than 20 years,”
offense level 29 applies to career offenders. Id. § 4B1.1(b)(4). The application
notes define statutory maximum as “the maximum term of imprisonment
authorized for the offense of conviction that is a crime of violence or controlled
substance offense, including any increase in that maximum term under a
sentencing enhancement provision that applies because of the defendant’s prior
criminal record.” Id. § 4B1.1, comment. n.2.
The statutory maximum for distribution of cocaine base clearly falls within
§ 4B1.1(b)(3)’s bounds. Under § 841(b)(1)(C), a person convicted of a controlled-
3
Case: 14-12159 Date Filed: 03/05/2015 Page: 4 of 6
substance offense involving a schedule II controlled substance, such as cocaine
base, “shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 20 years.”
By precluding sentences “more than 20 years,” the statute plainly allows for 20-
year sentences. That 20-year maximum unambiguously falls within the “20 years
or more” language from § 4B1.1(b). This conclusion is confirmed by this Circuit’s
precedent. In United States v. Rogers, 228 F.3d 1318, 1328–30 (11th Cir. 2000),
we observed that the 20-year maximum sentence under Section 841(b)(1)(C) falls
within the Section 4B1.1(b)(3) range for career-offender-enhancement purposes.
See id. at 1330.
Because the statute Fulton challenges is unambiguous, the rule of lenity does
not apply. Under the rule of lenity, we “‘will not interpret a federal criminal
statute so as to increase the penalty that it places on an individual when such an
interpretation can be no more than a guess as to what Congress intended.’” United
States v. Brame, 997 F.2d 1426, 1428 (11th Cir. 1993) (quoting Bifulco v. United
States, 447 U.S. 381, 387, 100 S. Ct. 2247, 2252 (1980)). However, although
“[t]he rule of lenity only serves as an aid for resolving an ambiguity, it is not an
inexorable command to override common sense and evident statutory purpose.”
Id. This being the case, in order to invoke the rule of lenity, “there must be a
‘grievous ambiguity or uncertainty in the statute.’” United States v. Maupin, 520
F.3d 1304, 1307 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (quoting Muscarello v. United
4
Case: 14-12159 Date Filed: 03/05/2015 Page: 5 of 6
States, 524 U.S. 125, 139, 118 S. Ct. 1911, 1919 (1998)). There is no grievous
ambiguity or uncertainty regarding whether § 4B1.1(b)(3) or (4) applies to the
statutory maximum term of imprisonment of “not more than 20 years” provided in
§ 841(b)(1)(C). The district court did not err.
II.
We review claims of Booker error raised for the first time on appeal for
plain error. United States v. York, 428 F.3d 1325, 1335 (11th Cir. 2005) (per
curiam). Under plain-error review, “[a]n appellate court may not correct an error
the defendant failed to raise in the district court unless there is: (1) error, (2) that is
plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d
1291, 1298 (11th Cir. 2005) (quotation omitted). “If all three conditions are met,
an appellate court may then exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error, but
only if (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of
judicial proceedings.” Id. (quotation omitted).
There is no reason to think the district court plainly erred by treating the
Guidelines as mandatory here. In United States v. Smith, 480 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir.
2007), the defendant argued that the district court erred by treating the Guidelines
as mandatory and making factual findings that were used to enhance his sentence.
Id. at 1281. We concluded that, from our review of the transcript of the sentencing
hearing, “it [was] clear that the district court considered the Guidelines to be
5
Case: 14-12159 Date Filed: 03/05/2015 Page: 6 of 6
advisory.” Id. (emphasis omitted). We noted that “the district judge explicitly
stated that she had consulted the ‘advisory range’” and “considered the factors set
forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in arriving at a sentence.” Id. We concluded that the
record therefore “showed that the district court understood the Guidelines to be
advisory.” Id.Likewise here, it is clear from the transcript of this sentencing hearing that
the district court knew the Guidelines were advisory, and not mandatory. As the
district court specifically stated:
Having considered the government’s motion for sentence reduction
for substantial assistance pursuant to USSG Section 5K1.1 and 18
USC Section 3553(e) the Court departs downward from the advisory
sentencing range and commits you to the Bureau of Prisons for a
period of 100 months. Since the sentence ordered by the Court is
within an advisory guideline range that is greater than 24 months the
Court is required to state the reason for the sentence. The Court
imposed a sentence of 100 months, after considering the advisory
sentencing range, the sentencing factors found at 18 USC Section
3553(a) and having made an individualized assessment based on the
facts presented.
Sentencing Tr. 8–9, Apr. 22, 2014, ECF No. 44. Fulton has not shown that the
district court erred under the first prong of plain-error review.
AFFIRMED.
6