Before
Howard, Stahl, and Thompson,
Circuit Judges.
July 5, 2013
levels,
Hogan
moved
for
and
was
granted
sentence
After
downward
adjustment
of
two
levels
for
acceptance
of
-2-
history.
That
departure
reduced
Hogan's
advisory
guideline range to 262 to 327 months and the court sentenced Hogan
to 262 months and five years of supervised release.
Six years later, Hogan moved to reduce his sentence
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), which permits district courts
to modify previously imposed sentences in certain circumstances to
take into account retroactive guideline amendments.1
Hogan's
The
The parties
The district
revised guideline range was 210 to 262 months and agreed with the
parties that Hogan's sentence should be reduced to 210 months.
In 2011, the Sentencing Commission adopted Amendments 750
and
759,
both
effective
November
1,
2011.
Amendment
750
-4-
the
crack-cocaine
guidelines,
Amendment
759
limited
the
Id.
Now,
substantial
assistance
to
the
government.
-5-
the
Commission
amended
Application
Note
In
to
offense
level
and
criminal
history
category
determined
on
the
retroactive
application
of
the
2011
application of the 2011 guideline amendments resulted in a twolevel reduction in Hogan's BOL from 32 to 30, and a corresponding
reduction in his TOL from 35 to 33, the amended version of
1B1.10(b)(2) did not entitle Hogan to a "reduction comparably less"
than his amended guideline because he had been sentenced to a
below-guideline sentence. United States v. Hogan, 00-CR-100-01-PB,
2011 WL 6337629, at *2 (D.N.H. Dec. 16, 2011).
The revised version of 1B1.10(b)(2) under Amendment
759, the court said, did not permit it to apply the CHC III
departure in calculating Hogan's guideline range -- the same
departure the court had applied in 2002 at his initial sentencing
and in 2008 when granting Hogan's motion to reduce his sentence
-6-
original CHC (VI), instead of the reduced CHC (III), and a TOL of
33 (reduced per the 2011 guideline amendments), resulting in an
amended guideline range of 235 to 293 months.
U.S.S.G.
1B1.10(b)(2)
does
not
prohibit
the
Because
See United
which
Hogan
moved
to
reduce
his
sentence.
Under
of
imprisonment
based
on
sentencing
range
that
has
-8-
Under
specified
in
the
policy
statement
(which
include
Id. 1B1.10(b)(1).
may substitute only the amended guideline and must "leave all other
guideline application decisions unaffected."
determines
the
amended
guideline
range,
Id.
it
Once a court
must
look
to
We disagree.
We need look no further than Application Note 1 to
determine
whether
1B1.10(b)(1)
allows
courts
to
consider
guideline
range
calculated
under
1B1.10(b)(1)
is
"determined
before
consideration
-9-
of
any
departure
We find
prohibits
the
court
from
reducing
defendant's
-10-
In 18
Commission's
instructions
in
1B1.10
to
determine
the
In
prohibiting further reductions to a defendant serving a belowguideline sentence based on departures other than those granted
because of the defendant's substantial assistance, the Commission
has plainly indicated "by what amount" sentences may be reduced on
the basis of retroactive amendments.
Court has already made clear, that 3582(c)(2) does not give the
defendant a resentencing opportunity.
3582(c)(2)
does
proceeding.").
not
authorize
sentencing
or
resentencing
-11-
authorize
only
limited
adjustment
to
an
otherwise
final
1B1.10 and the Application Note, constrained what the court could
do in modifying Hogan's sentence in this case. Id. at 2691 (noting
that " 1B1.10(b)(2) also confines the extent of the reduction
authorized").
To
be
sure,
the
Commission's
decision
to
revise
in which the term of imprisonment was less than the minimum of the
applicable guideline range prompted the Commission to determine
that in the context of 1B1.10, "a single limitation applicable to
both
departures
unwarranted
and
sentencing
individual cases."
Id.
variances
furthers
disparities
and
the
avoids
need
to
avoid
litigation
in
-12-
Id.3
He
Our
analysis
starts
and
ends
with
the
plain
and
Pursuant to
The only
Under
to
government
motion
to
reflect
the
defendant's
Id. 1B1.10(b)(2)(B).7
was
based
on
his
substantial
assistance
to
the
(3rd Cir. 2012); United States v. Anderson, 686 F.3d 585, 588 (8th
Cir. 2012); United States v. Glover, 686 F.3d 1203, 1207 (11th Cir.
2012); accord United States v. Colon, 707 F.3d 1255, 1258 (11th
Cir. 2013); United States
but
it
was
based
on
departure
the
exception
under
in
his
CHC,
not
1B1.10(b)(2)(B)
to
receive
amendments
applicable
guideline
at
range.
must
"lower[]"
U.S.S.G.
defendant's
1B1.10(a)(2)(B)
("A
-16-
Because the
at
initial
sentencing
based
on
4A1.3
departures
-17-
Affirmed.