Argued
and Submitted December 7, 2016 Seattle, Washington
Appeal
from the United States District Court for the District of
Montana, D.C. No. 6:05-cr-00002-DWM-1 Donald W. Molloy,
District Judge, Presiding
Michael Donahoe (argued), Senior Litigator; Joslyn Hunt,
Research Attorney; Anthony R. Gallagher, Federal Defender;
Office of the Federal Public Defender, Helena, Montana, for
Defendant-Appellant.
Joseph
E. Thaggard (argued), Assistant United States Attorney;
Michael W. Cotter, United States Attorney; United States
Attorney's Office, Missoula, Montana; for
Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before: M. Margaret McKeown, Richard C. Tallman, and Morgan
B. Christen, Circuit Judges.
SUMMARY[*]
Criminal
Law
The
panel affirmed the district court's denial of a motion
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence
reduction in light of Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782,
which lowered by two levels the base offense level calculated
for certain drug types and quantities.
The
panel held that the defendant's original sentence was not
"based on" a subsequently lowered guideline range,
and that he is therefore ineligible for a sentence reduction
under the first requirement of § 3582(c)(2), where the
record makes clear that the defendant's initial guideline
range played no role in the sentencing court's
determination of the appropriate sentence. The panel observed
that the sentencing judge's decision about the extent of
a substantial-assistance departure was not based on or
affected by the guideline range that would have applied in
the absence of the statutory mandatory minimum.
The
panel noted that in light of Sentencing Guidelines Amendment
780 and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c) (providing that a
defendant's amended guideline range shall be determined
without regard to the operation of any mandatory minimum if a
substantial-assistance motion allowed the court to deviate
below the minimum), the defendant's applicable guideline
range would be lowered due to Amendment 782, satisfying the
second requirement for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2).
But the panel explained that this inquiry does not resolve
whether as a threshold matter the original sentence was
"based on" the guideline range initially
calculated; and that because in this case it was not, the
defendant is not eligible for a reduction.
OPINION
McKEOWN, Circuit Judge:
Congress
has provided a limited mechanism for defendants to shave time
off their sentences when the Sentencing Commission amends the
Sentencing Guidelines with retroactive effect. In recent
years, the Commission amended the Guidelines to reduce the
potential time served by defendants convicted of certain drug
crimes. After one of these amendments came into effect,
Antonio Rodriguez-Soriano asked the district court to shorten
his sentence, but the court declined to do so. We affirm
because the district court properly determined that
Rodriguez-Soriano's original sentence was not actually
"based on" a subsequently lowered guideline range,
so he is ineligible for a sentence reduction.
Background
In
2005, Rodriguez-Soriano pled guilty to possession with intent
to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1). Because of the amount of drugs involved,
his base offense level was 32 and his total offense level was
29. See U.S.S.G. ยง 2D1.1(c). Although the
guideline range was 97-121 months due to his criminal
history, his guideline sentence was a mandatory term of life
imprisonment ...