United States of America v. RINALDO DIEHL also known as Gabe Rinaldo Diehl

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-1387
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
RINALDO DIEHL
also known as Gabe
Rinaldo Diehl,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Crim. Action No. 01-00373-011)
District Judge: Honorable Jerome B. Simandle
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 7, 2009
Before: MCKEE, HARDIMAN and COWEN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: October 9, 2009 )
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM
Rinaldo Diehl, proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the United States District

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Court for the District of New Jersey denying his motion to reduce his sentence under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We will affirm.
In October 2001, Diehl pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute more
than 5 grams of cocaine base. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). Diehl’s base
offense level (BOL) was 31, after the court applied a downward departure of three points
for acceptance of responsibility. Because Diehl had three prior drug felony convictions,
the career offender Guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, applied and he was assigned a criminal
history category of VI. The combined BOL/Criminal History score resulted in a
Guidelines range of 188 to 235 months of imprisonment. Diehl moved for a downward
departure, arguing that the career offender enhancements dramatically over-represented
his prior criminal background of drug convictions involving small amounts of cocaine.
The District Court declined to depart from the guidelines, and on May 29, 2002, imposed
a prison sentence of 188 months. We affirmed his sentence on direct appeal. See United
States v. Diehl, 65 Fed. Appx. 839 (3d Cir. May 8, 2003).
In 2008, Diehl filed a pro se motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence
reduction, based on Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which generally
reduced by two levels the base offense level for crack cocaine offenses. The District
Court denied the motion, and this appeal followed. The District Court had jurisdiction
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of a district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines is de

-- 2 of 4 --

3
novo. See United States v. Sanchez, 562 F.3d 275, 277-78 (3d Cir. 2009). We review a
court’s ultimate determination of a defendant’s motion to reduce sentence under
§ 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Mateo, 560 F.3d 152, 154 &
n.2 (3d Cir. 2009).
A District Court may reduce a term of imprisonment under § 3582(c)(2) “only
when two elements are satisfied: First, the defendant must have been ‘sentenced to a term
of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the
Sentencing Commission;’ and second, the sentence reduction must be ‘consistent with
applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.’” United States v.
Doe, 564 F.3d 305, 309 (3d Cir. 2009 (quoting § 3582(c)(2)). The applicable policy
statement provides that a sentence reduction is not authorized if the retroactive
amendment “does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline
range.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2). In this regard, “the policy statement and § 3582(c)(2)
are complementary.” Doe, 564 F.3d at 310.
In Mateo, we held that the crack cocaine amendment will not lower the applicable
Guidelines sentencing range under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b) for career offenders. Mateo, 560
F.3d at 154-55. This is because “Amendment 706 only affects calculation under
§ 2D1.1(c), and the lowering of the base offense level under § 2D1.1(c) has no effect on
the application of the career offender offense level required by § 4B1.1.” Id. at 155.
Because Diehl was sentenced as a career offender, the crack cocaine amendment does not

-- 3 of 4 --

4
affect his applicable sentencing range. Therefore, he may not obtain a reduction in his
sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2), and the District Court did not err in denying his motion
to reduce his sentence. We also reject Diehl’s arguments that United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005), and Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 558 (2007), require a
different result. Neither case provides a basis for a reduction of sentence not otherwise
allowable under § 3582(c). See Mateo, 560 F.3d at 155, 156.
We will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

-- 4 of 4 --