From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Thomas

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Dec 29, 2014
775 F.3d 982 (8th Cir. 2014)

Summary

holding that Amendment 782 reductions in drug offense levels do not apply to defendants whose offense levels were based on career offender enhancement rather than on drug Guidelines

Summary of this case from United States v. Brown

Opinion

No. 14–3801.

12-29-2014

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Orlando Martrel THOMAS, Defendant–Appellant.

Edward O. Walker, AUSA, Little Rock, AR, for Plaintiff–Appellee. Jenniffer Morris Horan, FPD, Little Rock, AR, for Defendant–Appellant.


Edward O. Walker, AUSA, Little Rock, AR, for Plaintiff–Appellee.

Jenniffer Morris Horan, FPD, Little Rock, AR, for Defendant–Appellant.

Before LOKEN, BYE, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

[Published]

PER CURIAM.

Orlando Martrel Thomas appeals the denial of his motion for a reduction of his sentence based on Amendment 782 of the Sentencing Guidelines, which became effective November 1, 2014, and retroactively reduced most drug quantity base offense levels by two levels. We affirm.

In 2011, Thomas pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute cocaine base (crack cocaine). The district court determined that he was a career offender, resulting in an advisory guidelines range of 188–235 months in prison. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. The court granted a downward departure or variance and sentenced Thomas to 180 months in prison.

The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

--------

A district court may reduce a previously imposed prison term if the defendant's sentence was “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission ... if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The Commission has authorized a § 3582(c)(2) reduction if a guidelines amendment that it has declared retroactive lowers the defendant's “applicable guidelines range.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2). In resentencing, the district court “shall substitute the amended Guidelines range for the initial range, and shall leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected.Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 821, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010), quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1) (emphasis added).

In late 2011, Thomas moved for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction based on Guidelines Amendment 750, which retroactively reduced the crack cocaine drug quantity levels in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. The district court denied relief because Thomas's base offense level and sentence were based on his status as a career offender, not on the drug quantity table. This ruling was consistent with prior Eighth Circuit decisions rejecting § 3582(c)(2) reductions based on an earlier crack cocaine amendment. See United States v. Washington, 618 F.3d 869, 872–73 (8th Cir.2010) (Amendment 706); United States v. Tolliver, 570 F.3d 1062, 1065 (8th Cir.2009) (same); United States v. Thomas, 524 F.3d 889, 890 (8th Cir.2008) (same). We summarily affirmed, consistent with our more recent decision in United States v. Williams, 488 Fed.Appx. 168, 169–70 (8th Cir.2012) (Amendment 750).

Amendment 782 has a broader focus than the crack cocaine amendments, lowering the base offense level for most drug quantity offenses under § 2D1.1. Thomas correctly notes that the Commission expressly made Amendment 782 retroactive (effective November 1, 2015). See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d) and (e)(1). However, like the earlier crack cocaine amendments, Amendment 782 amended § 2D1.1. It did not lower the sentencing range established for a career offender by § 4B1.1. Therefore, Thomas's “applicable guidelines range” was unaffected by Amendment 782. The Commission made this clear in its commentary explaining Amendment 782: “guideline enhancements for offenders who ... are ... career offenders, ensure that the most dangerous or serious offenders will continue to receive appropriately severe sentences.” U.S.S.G. Supp.App. C, at 74 (2014).

The district court correctly concluded that Orlando Thomas is not eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction. Accordingly, we affirm its Order dated November 20, 2014.


Summaries of

United States v. Thomas

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Dec 29, 2014
775 F.3d 982 (8th Cir. 2014)

holding that Amendment 782 reductions in drug offense levels do not apply to defendants whose offense levels were based on career offender enhancement rather than on drug Guidelines

Summary of this case from United States v. Brown

finding that a career offender's guideline range is "unaffected by Amendment 782"

Summary of this case from United States v. Avila

affirming the denial of motion for reduced sentence because the "applicable guidelines range" of a career offender who had been "granted a downward departure or variance" was "unaffected by Amendment 782"

Summary of this case from United States v. Borrero

explaining that Amendment 782 is applicable if the offense level is calculated under § 2D1.1, but inapplicable if it is based on career-offender status

Summary of this case from Mora-Higuera v. United States

stating that amendment 782 "did not lower the sentencing range established for a career offender by § 4B1.1"

Summary of this case from United States v. Gray

In Thomas, the Eighth Circuit construed the applicable guideline and policy statements and held that when a defendant is found to be a career offender and is sentenced under§ 4B1.1, the applicable guideline range under§ 3582(c)(2) is his career-offender range and Amendment 782 does not lower that guideline range.

Summary of this case from United States v. Vega

In Thomas, the Eighth Circuit construed the applicable guideline and policy statements and held that when a defendant is found to be a career offender and is sentenced under § 4B1.1, the applicable guideline range under § 3582(c)(2) is his career-offender range and Amendment 782 does not lower that guideline range.

Summary of this case from United States v. Vega

stating that amendment 782 "did not lower the sentencing range established for a career offender by § 4B1.1"

Summary of this case from United States v. Ramzy

stating that amendment 782 "did not lower the sentencing range established for a career offender by § 4B1.1"

Summary of this case from United States v. Torres

noting that "[t]he Commission made clear. . . in its commentary explaining Amendment 782 'guideline enhancements for . . . career offenders, ensure that the most dangerous or serious offenders will continue to receive appropriately severe sentences'"

Summary of this case from United States v. Borrero
Case details for

United States v. Thomas

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Orlando Martrel THOMAS…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Date published: Dec 29, 2014

Citations

775 F.3d 982 (8th Cir. 2014)

Citing Cases

United States v. Feauto

Amendment 782 became effective November 1, 2014, and was made retroactive effective November 1, 2015. United…

United States v. Vega

The Sentencing Commission subsequently adopted Amendment 782 which became effective November 1, 2014, and was…