United States of America v. Lloyd Tucker

Honorable Harold A. Ackerman, Senior United States District Judge for the*
District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.
1
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
__________
No. 08-3121
__________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
LLOYD TUCKER,
Appellant
__________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 93-117)
(District Judge: Honorable William W. Caldwell)
__________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
March 6, 2009
Before: BARRY and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges,
and ACKERMAN, Senior District Judge.*
(Filed: April 2, 2009)
__________
OPINION OF THE COURT
__________

-- 1 of 3 --

In calculating a base offense level of 26, the District Court rejected the suggestion of the1
Probation Department that a base offense level of 34 be applied. Probation recommended a drug
quantity of between 150 and 500 grams, but the District Court concluded that the drug weight
was between 5 and 50 grams.
2
ACKERMAN, Senior District Judge.
Defendant Lloyd Tucker appeals the District Court’s denial of his pro se motion to
modify his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In October 1993, a jury found
Tucker guilty of conspiracy with intent to distribute crack cocaine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, as well as falsely representing that a certain Social Security
number was his own, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B). At sentencing, the District
Court initially calculated a base offense level of 26 under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c), based on
the court’s drug quantity finding. Adding in other offense level calculations, Tucker1
ordinarily would have faced a total offense level of 31. However, Tucker had two prior
felony drug-trafficking convictions, thus making him a career offender for purposes of
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Tucker’s career offender status required that his total offense level be
34, notwithstanding the provisions of § 2D1.1(c). With a Criminal History category of VI
as mandated by the career offender provision, Tucker faced a Guidelines range of 262-
327 months. The District Court sentenced him to 262 months on the drug charge and 60
months on the false Social Security number charge, to run concurrently.
After the Sentencing Commission retroactively amended the crack cocaine
guidelines, lowering the base offense levels for crack cocaine offenses under §2D1.1(c)
by two levels, Tucker filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
The District Court denied Tucker’s motion because the crack cocaine amendments do not
reduce the final sentencing range applicable to Tucker.
The District Court had jurisdiction to hear Tucker’s motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3231. We have jurisdiction over Tucker’s appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo a district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines, and we review a court’s
ultimate determination of a defendant’s motion to reduce sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for
abuse of discretion. United States v. Mateo, ___ F.3d ___, 2009 WL 750411, at *2 (3d
Cir. Mar. 24, 2009).
This Court recently held in Mateo that the crack cocaine amendments provide no
benefit to defendants sentenced as career offenders pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 because
the amendments do not lower the applicable Guidelines sentencing range for career
offenders. Id., ___ F.3d at ___, 2009 WL 750411, at *3. Tucker was sentenced as a
career offender, and the crack cocaine amendments therefore do not affect his applicable
sentencing range. For the reasons stated in Mateo, Tucker may not seek a reduction in his
sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2), and the District Court did not err in denying Tucker’s
motion. Tucker’s additional grounds for appeal lack merit. Therefore, we will affirm the
judgment of the District Court.

-- 3 of 3 --