United States v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 11 August 2021
• Docket Number: No. 20-50015,20-50015
• Citation: 8 F.4th 970
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vince Edward WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

8 F.4th 970

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Vince Edward WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-50015

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 13, 2021 Pasadena, California

Filed August 11, 2021

Brianna Fuller Mircheff (argued), Deputy Federal Public Defender; Cuauhtemoc Ortega, Federal Public Defender; Office of the Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, California; for Defendant-Appellant.

Meryl Holt (argued), Assistant United States Attorney; L. Ashley Aull, Chief, Criminal Appeals Section; Nicola T. Hanna, United States Attorney; United States Attorney's Office, Los Angeles, California; for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before: Milan D. Smith, Jr. and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges, and Kathryn H. Vratil,^* District Judge.

Concurrence by Judge Ikuta ; Dissent by Judge Vratil

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Vince Wilson appeals the district court's denial of his second motion for a sentence modification under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Assuming that Wilson was entitled to relief under § 3582(c)(2), the district court did not procedurally or substantively err in exercising its discretion to deny the motion.

I

In December 2005, Wilson was convicted of eleven counts related to the importation and sale of a controlled substance (Counts 1–11); one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count 12), and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Count 13).

The Presentence Report (PSR) prepared for the district court grouped Counts 1–11 with Count 13.¹ Under the Sentencing Guidelines, when counts are grouped together, the offense level applicable to the group is "the highest offense level of the counts in the Group." U.S.S.G. § 3D1.3(a). Following this rule, the PSR used the applicable offense level for Counts 1–11, see id. § 2D1.1, because it is higher than that for Count 13, see id. § 2K.2.1. Applying the Drug Quantity Table in § 2D1.1(c)(2), the PSR calculated an offense level of 36 for the quantity of drugs involved in Counts 1–11. § 2D1.1(c)(2). The PSR also applied a 2-level increase to the offense level because Wilson "was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in [the] criminal activity." § 3B1.1(c). The total offense level was thus 38. The PSR determined that Wilson was in Criminal History Category III. Therefore, the Guidelines sentencing range for Counts 1–11 and 13 was 292–365 months imprisonment. For Count 12, the statutory mandatory minimum sentence was 60 months, applied consecutively. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) ; U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2(e). Therefore, the PSR calculated the Guidelines sentencing range for all counts as 352–425 months.

At Wilson's sentencing in 2006, the district court (then Judge Takasugi) relied on the calculations set out in the PSR. For the grouped Counts 1–11 and 13, Judge Takasugi chose to sentence Wilson to 292 months, the low end of the range. But this low-end number exceeded the statutory maximum sentence of 240 months for each of Counts 1–11. Under the Guidelines, "[i]f the sentence imposed on the count carrying the highest statutory maximum is less than the total punishment, then the sentence imposed on one or more of the other counts shall run consecutively, but only to the extent necessary to produce a combined sentence equal to the total punishment." U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2(d). Following this direction, the court sentenced Wilson to 240 months on each of Counts 1–11, to be served concurrently, and 52 months on Count 13, to be served consecutively, for a total of 292 months (the low-end of the Guidelines range). Finally, for Count 12, the court sentenced Wilson to the statutory minimum of 60 months, to be served consecutively. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) ; U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2(e) ("[T]he sentence to be imposed on the 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) ... count shall be imposed to run consecutively to any other count."). Wilson's total sentence was therefore 352 months.

In 2014, Congress approved Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which retroactively amended the Drug Quantity Table, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c), thereby reducing by two levels the offense levels assigned to specified quantities of drugs. In Wilson's case, this meant that the Drug Quantity Table now showed an offense level of 34, instead of 36, for the quantity of drugs involved in Counts 1–11, making him eligible for a sentence modification under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).²

The following year, the government and the Office of the Federal Public Defenders (FPD) entered into a joint stipulation asking the district court (now Judge Hatter) to appoint the FPD to represent a specified list of defendants, including Wilson, and to reduce their sentences under § 3582(c)(2) as a result of Amendment 782.³ As for Wilson's sentence, the parties stipulated that the base offense level should be reduced from 36 to 34. Adding the two-level increase under § 3B1.1(c) (for being an organizer, leader, manager or supervisor), the reduced total offense level was 36 (rather than 38) and the reduced Guidelines range was 235–293 months. Based on this reduction, the parties asked for Wilson's sentence to be modified to 235 months on each of Counts 1–11, to be served concurrently, 52 months on Count 13, to be served consecutively (adding up to 287 months on the grouped Counts 1–11 and 13), and 60 months on Count 12 to be served consecutively, for a total of 347 months. Judge Hatter reduced Wilson's sentence exactly as requested in the stipulation.

Three years later, in 2018, Wilson filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's sentence modification order. According to Wilson, to accomplish Amendment 782's "full 2-point deduction," Judge Hatter should have given him the low end of the new Guidelines range (235 months) for Counts 1–11 and 13, plus 60 months mandated for Count 12, for a total of 295 months instead of 347 months. Judge Hatter denied the motion. He reasoned that "[b]ecause Amendment 782 served only to reduce the total base offense level of the drug convictions, Amendment 782 had no effect on the sentence[ ] based on [Count 13]." Although Wilson appealed this denial of his motion for reconsideration, his appeal was subsequently dismissed for failure to prosecute.⁴

In October 2019, Wilson filed a second motion for sentence modification under § 3582(c). Wilson argued that Judge Hatter had erred in modifying his sentence in 2015 because Judge Hatter reduced his sentence only on Counts 1–11, and failed to reduce the sentence on Count 13, even though Wilson was eligible for a reduction on that count as well. According to Wilson, Judge Hatter failed to realize that Judge Takasugi had allocated 52 months to Count 13 only because the low end of the Guidelines range for the grouped Counts 1–11 and 13 exceeded the statutory maximum sentence of 240 months for Counts 1–11. After Amendment 782, the low end of the Guidelines range was less than the statutory maximum for Counts 1–11, and so there was no need to allocate 52 months to Count 13 to run consecutively. In order to effectuate Judge Takasugi's intent to sentence Wilson to a low-end guideline sentence, Wilson argued, Judge Hatter should modify his current term of imprisonment so that the 52-month sentence for Count 13 ran concurrently with his sentence on Counts 1–11. In effect, Wilson argued that Judge Hatter erred by failing to give him the low-end of the amended Guidelines range in 2015 as Judge Takasugi originally did in 2006, and should correct that error in a second sentence modification in 2019. The government opposed the motion.

Judge Hatter denied Wilson's motion for a sentence modification. The court reviewed Wilson's conviction, his original sentence imposed in 2006, his resentencing in 2015, and his 2018 motion for reconsideration. The court acknowledged that "Amendment 782 increased the drug quantity thresholds for most of the base offense levels of § 2D1.1 ’s Drug Quantity Table, which, consequently, lowered the sentencing ranges for some individuals' drug convictions." However, the court held that "Wilson points to no authority ... that supports the proposition that Amendment 782's changes to the drug quantity thresholds of § 2D1.1 had any effect on his firearm conviction," and therefore rejected Wilson's argument that he was entitled to a reduction of his firearm-related sentence (Count 13) because it was grouped with his drug convictions and therefore was based on the Drug Quantity Table. Further, citing United States v. Dunn , 728 F.3d 1151, 1158–1160 (9th Cir. 2013), Judge Hatter stated that "even assuming, arguendo , that Wilson is eligible for a sentence reduction on his [firearm] conviction under Amendment 782, the Court, having considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 and, inter alia , the nature of Wilson's crimes, declines to exercise its discretion to resentence him."

Wilson now appeals the district court's denial of his motion for a second sentence modification under § 3582(c). He argues that Judge Hatter erred in concluding he lacked authority to reduce the sentence for Count 13, and, according to Wilson, this error tainted his discretionary denial of Wilson's motion. Wilson also contends that Judge Hatter procedurally erred by failing to provide a sufficient explanation for denying Wilson's motion, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Finally, Wilson argues that the denial of his motion rendered his sentence substantively unreasonable.

II

We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a district court's discretionary denial of a motion for sentence modification under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion. United States v. Colson , 573 F.3d 915, 916 (9th Cir. 2009). "A district court may abuse its discretion if it does not apply the correct law or if it rests its decision on a clearly erroneous finding of material fact." United States v. Lightfoot , 626 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). Although it is an open...