United States of America v. Damarx Ali Hinton

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 08-2729
_____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DAMARX ALI HINTON,
Appellant
_____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(No. 4-00-cr-00123-001)
District Judge: Honorable James F. McClure, Jr.
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 2, 2009
Before: MCKEE, CHAGARES, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
____________
(Filed: October 29, 2009)
____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
____________
CHAGARES, Circuit Judge
Appellant Damarx Hinton appeals from the District Court’s denial of his motion to
reconsider its order denying his motion for reduction of sentence. For the reasons set

-- 1 of 4 --

2
forth below, we will affirm
I.
Because we write only for the parties, we will only briefly summarize the essential
facts.
Hinton pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of
cocaine base (also known as “crack cocaine”), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and
for aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2. The District Court determined that
the applicable United States Sentencing Guidelines range was 188 to 235 months of
imprisonment and sentenced Hinton to a term of 188 months of imprisonment. Hinton
appealed, and this Court affirmed. He then filed a motion to vacate his sentence, and the
District Court denied the motion.
Subsequently, Guidelines Amendment 706 took effect. It modified the Guidelines
ranges applicable to crack cocaine offenses including Hinton’s. Under Amendment 706,
the low end of Hinton’s Guidelines range would be 151 months (rather than 188).
In light of Amendment 706, Hinton filed a motion to reduce sentence pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The District Court granted the motion and reduced Hinton’s
prison term to 151 months. Hinton then filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that
the District Court erred in failing to allow him to present evidence in support of an even
greater reduction. The District Court denied the motion, and Hinton filed this appeal.
II.
The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3231 and 3582(c). We

-- 2 of 4 --

3
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the District Court’s legal
interpretation of relevant statutes and Guidelines, and we review for abuse of discretion
the District Court’s ultimate ruling on a motion to reduce a sentence pursuant to §
3582(c)(2). See United States v. Mateo, 560 F.3d 152, 154 & n.2 (3d Cir. 2009).
Section 3582(c)(2) grants a district court discretion to reduce the prison term 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 . . . .” Such a
reduction, however, must be “consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the
Sentencing Commission.” § 3582(c)(2). The “applicable policy statement[]” here is
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b). That statement instructs the district court to compute an amended
Guidelines range by “substitut[ing] only [Amendment 706] for the corresponding
guideline provisions that were applied when the defendant was sentenced and shall leave
all other guideline application decisions unaffected,” § 1B1.10(b)(1), and then (with
exceptions not relevant here) prohibits the district court from “reduc[ing] the defendant’s
term of imprisonment under . . . § 3582(c)(2) . . . to a term that is less than the minimum
of th[at] amended guideline range,” § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A). Thus, the text of § 3582(c)(2)
and § 1B1.10(b) plainly prohibited the District Court from reducing Hinton’s prison term
any lower than it did – to 151 months, the low end of the amended Guidelines range.
Hinton argues that this restriction is advisory, not mandatory, in light of United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). In his view, the District Court therefore erred in
failing to allow him to present evidence in support of a further sentence reduction (below

-- 3 of 4 --

4
the 151 months the District Court ultimately imposed).
This is argument is meritless. Booker did not give the District Court the authority
to impose a sentence lower than 151 months – the low end of the amended Guidelines
range. See United States v. Doe, 564 F.3d 305, 314 (3d Cir. 2009) (“Nothing in Booker
purported to obviate the congressional directive in § 3582(c)(2) that a sentence reduction
pursuant to that section be consistent with Sentencing Commission policy statements.”).
Therefore, the District Court did not err in failing to allow Hinton to present evidence in
support of a further reduction.
III.
For the above reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

-- 4 of 4 --