U.S. v. Washington

• Decision Date: 27 October 2009
• Docket Number: No. 09-5171.,No. 09-5110.,09-5110.,09-5171.
• Citation: 584 F.3d 693
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Errol Eugene WASHINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

584 F.3d 693

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Errol Eugene WASHINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-5110.

No. 09-5171.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Submitted: August 4, 2009.

Decided and Filed: October 27, 2009.

John G. Oliva, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellant.

Matthew J. Everitt, Assistant United States Attorney, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee.

Before: SILER, MOORE, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.

GRIFFIN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which SILER, J., joined. MOORE, J. (p. 701), delivered a separate opinion concurring in the judgment.

OPINION

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge.

Defendant Errol Eugene Washington appeals the district court's order denying, in part, his motion to reduce and modify his otherwise valid sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Washington's appeal presents an issue of first impression in our circuit: whether the district court, in modifying a sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2), has authority under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), to reduce a sentence beyond the retroactive United States Sentencing Guidelines amendment range. For the reasons explained below, we hold that the district court does not have such authority and therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.

I.

On May 1, 1995, Washington was convicted by jury of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count 1), possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Count 2), and carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count 3). On February 8, 1996, the district court determined that Washington's total offense level was 38 and assessed his criminal history category at I, producing a Guidelines range of 235 to 293 months of imprisonment on Counts 1 and 2 and a five-year consecutive term of imprisonment on Count 3. The district court sentenced Washington to a total of 295 months of imprisonment.

While Washington was in prison, the Sentencing Commission adopted Amendment 706, effective November 1, 2007, which altered the drug quantity table set forth in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 to lower the base offense level for crack cocaine offenses by two levels. The Commission added Amendment 706 to the list set forth in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c), a policy statement that designates those Guidelines amendments that may be applied retroactively.¹

Based upon Amendment 706, Washington filed a motion in the district court on August 11, 2008, requesting a modification of his 1996 sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), which provides a limited exception to the rule barring a court from altering a valid sentence once it has been imposed. Applying the amended drug quantity table, the district court reduced Washington's base offense level from 38 to 36, yielding an amended Guidelines sentencing range of 188 to 235 months. Thereafter, the district court modified Washington's sentence on Counts 1 and 2 to 188 months, the bottom of the amended Guidelines range. Washington moved for a further reduction, arguing that his sentence was greater than necessary to achieve its purpose under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court denied this aspect of the motion, ruling that it lacked the authority to do so pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A). Washington also filed a Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(a) motion that the district court denied.²

Washington timely appeals.

II.

"A district court's denial of a motion to modify a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed under the abuse-of-discretion standard." United States v. Perdue, 572 F.3d 288, 290 (6th Cir.2009). We have explained that a district court abuses its discretion when it relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact, improperly applies the law, or uses an erroneous legal standard. Id.

We review de novo the sentencing court's interpretation of statutes. United States v. Corrado, 304 F.3d 593, 607 (6th Cir.2002). Regarding statutory construction, we are guided by the following well-established principles:

"[i]t is elementary that the meaning of a statute must, in the first instance, be sought in the language in which the act is framed, and if that is plain, and if the law is within the constitutional authority of the lawmaking body which passed it, the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms." Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 485, 37 S.Ct. 192, 61 L.Ed. 442 (1917). "If the words are plain, they give meaning to the act, and it is neither the duty nor the privilege of the courts to enter speculative fields in search of a different meaning." Id. at 490, 37 S.Ct. 192. Recognizing the consequences of unbridled judicial forays into the legislative sphere, the Supreme Court has admonished "`time and again that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.'" Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291, 296, 126 S.Ct. 2455, 165 L.Ed.2d 526 (2006) (quoting Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-54, 112 S.Ct. 1146, 117 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992)). Accordingly, "[w]hen the statutory language is plain, the sole function of the courts—at least where the disposition required by the text is not absurd—is to enforce it according to its terms." Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). See also Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 340, 117 S.Ct. 843, 136 L.Ed.2d 808 (1997) ("[The courts'] inquiry must cease if the statutory language is unambiguous and the statutory scheme is coherent and consistent.") (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); Rubin v. United States, 449 U.S. 424, 430, 101 S.Ct. 698, 66 L.Ed.2d 633 (1981) ("When we find the terms of a statute unambiguous, judicial inquiry is complete, except in rare and exceptional circumstances.").

Thompson v. N. Am. Stainless, LP, 567 F.3d 804, 807 (6th Cir.2009) (en banc).

III.

"A district court may modify a defendant's sentence only as provided by statute." Perdue, 572 F.3d at 290. Section 3582(c)(2) of Title 18 provides, in relevant part The court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except that—

* * *

(2) in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. [§] 994(o), upon motion of the defendant or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or on its own motion, the court may reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (emphasis added).

The policy statement applicable to § 3582(c)(2) limits the calculation of a new sentencing Guidelines range as follows:

In determining whether, and to what extent, a reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement is warranted, the court shall determine the amended guideline range that would have been applicable to the defendant if the amendment(s) to the guidelines listed in subsection (c) had been in effect at the time the defendant was sentenced. In making such determination, the court shall substitute only the amendments listed in subsection (c) for the corresponding guideline provisions that were applied when the defendant was sentenced and shall leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected.

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(b)(1) (2008).

Furthermore, the policy statement provides that the sentencing court may not reduce a sentence below the new Guidelines range: "the court shall not reduce the defendant's term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guidelines range determined under [§ 1B1.10(b)(1)]." Id. at § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) (emphasis added).

The amended Guidelines range in the present case is 188 to 235 months of imprisonment. The district court carefully analyzed our precedents, and those of other circuits, and thereafter concluded that it did not have the authority to reduce Washington's sentence below 188 months. However, the district court expressly stated that were it to have discretion under § 3582(c)(2) to impose a sentence below the amended Guidelines range, it would have imposed a sentence of 160 months of imprisonment.

IV.

On appeal, Washington concedes that the amended Guidelines provide for a sentence of no less than 188 months. However, he argues that when considering a motion to modify a previously imposed (and otherwise valid) sentence, brought pursuant to § 3582(c)(2), the district court should treat the amended Guidelines range as advisory in light of Booker and Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007). He asserts that § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A), which forbids the reduction of a sentence to a term of imprisonment less than the amended Guidelines range, is a mandatory sentencing scheme that is unlawful under Booker and Kimbrough.

The government counters that 28 U.S.C. § 994(u) authorizes the Sentencing Commission to decide under "what circumstances and by what amounts the sentences of prisoners ... may be reduced." 28 U.S.C. § 994(u); Braxton v. United States, 500 U.S. 344, 348, 111 S.Ct. 1854 114 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991) ("Congress has granted the [Sentencing] Commission the unusual explicit power to decide whether and to what extent its amendments reducing sentences will be given retroactive effect[.]"). Thus, the Commission's policy statements (which are an implementation of its authority to decide whether and to what extent its amendments are retroactive) are binding because they are an exercise of its statutory authority. See 28...