USA v. Joseph Australia Bowden

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MARCH 25, 2010
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 09-14246
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 90-00127-CR-J-20
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSEPH AUSTRALIA BOWDEN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(March 25, 2010)
Before BARKETT, HULL and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Australia Bowden appeals his sentence of imprisonment of 360

-- 1 of 5 --

months imposed after the district court reduced Bowden’s original sentence of
imprisonment for 480 months for his drug crimes. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
Bowden argues that his sentence is unreasonable. We affirm.
In 1990, Bowden was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine base, 21
U.S.C. § 846, possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, id. § 841(a)(1); 18
U.S.C. § 2, and six counts of distributing cocaine base, id.; 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
The presentence investigation report provided a base offense level of 36 because
Bowden’s crimes involved at least 500 grams of cocaine base, United States
Sentencing Guidelines § 2D1.1(a)(3) (Nov. 1987), and the report increased that
level by 4 points for Bowden’s possession of a firearm, id. § 2D1.1(b)(1), and his
substantial role in the conspiracy, id. § 3B1.1(c). With a criminal history of IV, the
report provided a sentencing range between 360 months and life imprisonment.
The district court sentenced Bowden to 480 months of imprisonment.
In January 2008, Bowden moved to reduce his sentence. 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2). Bowden requested a two point reduction of his base offense level,
which provided an amended guideline range between 324 and 405 months of
imprisonment. See U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 706 (Supp. Nov. 1, 2007). Bowden
requested that the district court sentence him to 324 months of imprisonment.
After the district court appointed counsel for Bowden, he requested a sentence
2

-- 2 of 5 --

below the guideline range based on the sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),
and the disparity among sentences imposed for offenses involving cocaine
hydrochloride and cocaine base.
The district court granted Bowden’s motion and reduced his sentence to 360
months of imprisonment. The district court explained that, except for the two level
reduction of Bowden’s base offense level, “all provisions of the judgment imposed
on February 18, 1991, . . . remain[ed] in effect . . . .” Bowden moved for
reconsideration. Bowden requested a “sentence not more than 324 months,” or
“[i]n the alternative,” for the district court to “state its reasons for declining to do
so.” The district court denied Bowden’s motion summarily.
We review “de novo a district court’s conclusions about the scope of its
legal authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).” United States v. Jones, 548 F.3d
1366, 1368 (11th Cir. 2008). A district court may reduce a term of imprisonment
when the guideline range is lowered by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c). When the district court recalculates the sentence under the amended
guidelines, “all original sentencing determinations remain unchanged with the sole
exception of the guideline range that has been amended since the original
sentencing.” United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 781 (11th Cir. 2000). The
district court must decide, in the light of the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C.
3

-- 3 of 5 --

§ 3553(a), “whether, in its discretion, it will elect to impose the newly calculated
sentence under the amended guidelines or retain the original sentence.” Bravo, 203
F.3d at 781.
The district court did not err in reducing Bowden’s sentence. Bowden
argues that the district court failed to “consider and articulate” the sentencing
factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and the court failed to account for his background and
rehabilitation, but the record refutes these arguments. The district court stated that
it had reviewed Bowden’s motion and “considered the supplemental presentence
report[,] . . . the parties responses,” and “the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors before
determining what was an appropriate sentence . . . .” See United States v.
Williams, 557 F.3d 1254, 1256–57 (11th Cir. 2009). After it considered Bowden’s
arguments, the district court reduced Bowden’s sentence to 360 months of
imprisonment. See 28 U.S.C. § 3553(a); Bravo, 203 F.3d at 781. Bowden also
argues that district court had discretion to reduce his sentence below the amended
range under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and
Kimbrough v. United States, 522 U.S. 85, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007), but those
decisions do not apply to a motion to reduce a sentence. See United States v.
Melvin, 556 F.3d 1190, 1191–93 (11th Cir. 2009). Although Bowden asks that we
reconsider our decision in Melvin, the holding of a prior panel “is binding on all
4

-- 4 of 5 --

subsequent panels unless and until it is overruled or undermined to the point of
abrogation by the Supreme Court or by this court sitting en banc.” United States v.
Archer, 531 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008).
Bowden’s modified sentence is AFFIRMED.
5

-- 5 of 5 --