United States v. Mann , 373 F. App'x 350 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6376
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT CY MANN, a/k/a B,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:98-cr-00047-RAJ-TEM-12)
Argued: January 26, 2010 Decided: April 9, 2010
Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Richard Daniel Cooke, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Jenifer Wicks,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Dana James Boente,
United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia; Darryl J.
Mitchell, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Robert Mann of possession with intent to
distribute crack cocaine and distribution of cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). On January 15, 1999, the
district court held a hearing to determine the drug quantities
involved and sentenced Mann to 252 months’ imprisonment on each
count, to run concurrently, plus five years of supervised
release for each count, also to run concurrently.
On May 27, 2008, Mann moved for a reduction of sentence
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) and the crack cocaine
amendment to the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”
or “Guidelines”). U.S.S.G. app. C, amends. 706, 711. On July
14, 2008, the district court denied the motion, finding Mann
“ineligible for an adjustment of sentence, as [his] drug weight
exceeds 4.5 kilograms of cocaine base.”
On July 22, Mann moved pro se to alter or amend the July 14
order, pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The district court construed this motion as one for
reconsideration and appointed counsel to represent Mann. On
January 26, 2009, the district court granted the motion,
explaining that “after further review, . . . the record of the
sentencing hearing does not sufficiently establish that
Petitioner was explicitly held responsible for 4.5 kilograms of
crack cocaine.” The Government noted this appeal.
2
We heard oral argument in this case on the same day as we
heard argument in United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233 (4th
Cir. 2010). In Goodwyn, the Government asserted that a district
court does not have jurisdiction to reconsider a months-old
order granting or denying a § 3582 motion for sentence
reduction. We agreed, holding that the district court in that
case lacked the authority to further reduce Goodwyn’s sentence
after initially granting his § 3582(c)(2) motion.
Although represented by the same attorney, the Government
did not take the same approach in its brief in this case as it
had in Goodwyn. On brief in the case at hand, the Government
made no jurisdictional argument. Failure to challenge
jurisdiction, however, does not eliminate the need for this
court “to satisfy itself not only of its own jurisdiction, but
also that of the lower courts in a cause under review.” United
States v. Poole, 531 F.3d 263, 270 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, after issuing our opinion in Goodwyn, we
requested supplemental briefing in this case, affording Mann the
opportunity to show a basis for jurisdiction here. Mann offers
no legal authority for the sentence reduction other than
§ 3582(c)(2). Rather, in addition to simply protesting the
result in Goodwyn, Mann only argues that the district court in
his case had the authority to reduce his sentence because
3
“[u]nlike in Goodwyn, here, the trial court did not grant a
reduction in sentence twice.” Supp. Br. of Appellee at 2. * Our
holding in Goodwyn forecloses this argument, for we there
explained:
When the Sentencing Commission reduces the Guidelines
range applicable to a prisoner’s sentence, the
prisoner has an opportunity pursuant to § 3582(c)(2)
to persuade the district court to modify his sentence.
If the result does not satisfy him, he may timely
appeal it. But he may not, almost eight months later,
ask the district court to reconsider its decision.
Goodwyn, 596 F.3d at 236.
Thus, the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant
Mann’s second request for a sentence reduction pursuant to
§ 3582(c)(2). We therefore vacate the January 26, 2009 order
granting Mann’s motion for reconsideration and reducing his
sentence to 188 months’ imprisonment on each count, to run
concurrently. We remand the case for reinstatement of the 252-
month concurrent sentences pronounced on January 15, 1999 and
affirmed in the July 14, 2008 order.
VACATED AND REMANDED
*
Mann also contends that the Government waived any
arguments challenging the district court’s jurisdiction, but, of
course, “subject-matter jurisdiction can never be forfeited or
waived” because “it involves a court’s power to hear a case.”
United States v. Hartwell, 448 F.3d 707, 715 (4th Cir. 2006)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
4