United States v. Ronald Boatwright , 318 F. App'x 100 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2009 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    3-24-2009
    USA v. Ronald Boatwright
    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
    Docket No. 08-2132
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
    Recommended Citation
    "USA v. Ronald Boatwright" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1700.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1700
    This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
    NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ____________
    No. 08-2132
    ____________
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    v.
    RONALD IAN BOATWRIGHT
    Ronald Boatwright,
    Appellant
    ____________
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
    (D.C. No. 1-03-cr-00361-001)
    District Judge: Honorable William W. Caldwell
    ____________
    Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
    March 3, 2009
    Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, SLOVITER and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges.
    (Filed: March 24, 2009)
    ____________
    OPINION OF THE COURT
    ____________
    HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.
    Ronald Boatwright appeals the judgment of the District Court denying his request
    for a reduced sentence pursuant to 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c). We will affirm.
    I.
    Because we write exclusively for the parties, we recount only those facts essential
    to our decision.
    In 2003 Boatwright pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute crack
    cocaine in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1) (Count I), and possession of a firearm in
    furtherance of drug trafficking in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (c) (Count II). The
    presentence report calculated Boatwright’s total offense level for Count I to be 19 after
    deducting three points for acceptance of responsibility. When combined with a criminal
    history category of IV, Boatwright’s imprisonment range under the then-mandatory
    United States Sentencing Guidelines was 46 to 57 months. On the firearm offense,
    Boatwright faced a statutory mandatory minimum of five years imprisonment, which had
    to be imposed consecutively to the drug count. See 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (c)(1)(A)(I). The
    District Court sentenced Boatwright to 84 months, which was comprised of 24 months for
    the drug offense (a 48% reduction from the bottom of the Guidelines range), plus 60
    months for the gun offense.
    2
    A.
    In March 2008, Boatwright filed a motion seeking a sentence reduction under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(2) and USSG § 1B1.10, based on Amendment 706, which amended the
    Guidelines for crack cocaine offenses by retroactively ordering a two-level reduction in
    the offense level.1 As§ 1B1.10 of the Guidelines states: a court “may reduce the
    defendant’s term of imprisonment” when “the guideline range applicable to that
    defendant has subsequently been lowered as a result of an amendment to the Guidelines
    manual listed in subsection (c) below.” Amendment 706 is listed in subsection (c);
    nevertheless, § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) plainly states that “if the original term of imprisonment
    constituted a non-guideline sentence determined pursuant to 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) and
    United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
     (2005), a further reduction generally would not be
    appropriate.” 
    Id.
    Boatwright argues that his original sentence was a Guidelines sentence because
    Judge Caldwell stated that he was using the Guidelines “as a measure,” but noted that he
    was “going to vary that somewhat.” We disagree.
    Contrary to Boatwright’s argument, the language he cites shows that the District
    Court was not relying on the Guidelines in imposing the sentence. Although Booker had
    1
    Under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(2), a defendant can seek the benefit of an amendment
    by a motion to modify his sentence. The United States Sentencing Commission has
    authority to amend the guidelines, 
    28 U.S.C. § 994
    (o), and to provide that any amendment
    has retroactive effect. § 994(u).
    3
    not been decided when Boatwright was sentenced, Judge Caldwell presciently anticipated
    the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker and declined to impose a Guidelines sentence,
    correctly predicting that “the Blakely decision will be extended to the Federal Sentencing
    Guidelines.” Dist. Ct. Op. at 7.2 Additionally, Judge Caldwell noted that if he had been
    required to apply a Guidelines sentence, he would have imposed a sentence of 46 months
    for the drug offense, and 60 months for the firearm offense, for a total of 106 months
    imprisonment. Taken together, these statements demonstrate that the District Court did
    not adhere to the Guidelines in imposing its sentence. Thus, under § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B), a
    sentencing reduction would not be appropriate.
    B.
    Boatwright next argues that the District Court improperly interpreted
    § 1B1.10(b)(2) to deprive it of the power to further reduce Boatwright’s non-Guidelines
    sentence. Boatwright argues that § 1B1.10(b)(2) is merely an advisory policy statement,
    and to hold otherwise would violate Booker and United States v. Kimbrough, 
    128 S. Ct. 558
     (2007). Our review of the record leads us to the opposite conclusion. Judge
    Caldwell did not believe that § 1B1.10(b)(2) removed his discretion to reduce
    Boatwright’s sentence, because he stated: “We decline to grant a further reduction.” Dist.
    2
    In Blakely v. Washington, 
    542 U.S. 296
     (2004), which involved a state criminal
    statute, the Supreme Court held that other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that
    increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be
    submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 
    Id. at 301
    .
    4
    Ct. Op. at 6. The District Court noted that § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) “advises that if the original
    sentence was a non-guideline one . . . further reduction ‘generally’ is not appropriate.”
    Again, the record shows that the District Court understood that § 1B1.10(b)(2) was
    advisory, and that it chose not to reduce further Boatwright’s sentence.
    For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-2132

Citation Numbers: 318 F. App'x 100

Filed Date: 3/24/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023