USA v. Anthony Jackson

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-11391
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:08-cr-80073-DTKH-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANTHONY JACKSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(October 22, 2015)
Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, HULL and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-11391 Date Filed: 10/22/2015 Page: 1 of 5

-- 1 of 5 --

2
Anthony Jackson appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence. He argues that he is entitled to a
sentence reduction because Amendment 782 to the sentencing guidelines lowered
the advisory guideline range for one of his convictions, and the Supreme Court’s
decision in Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. __, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), resulted
in a lower mandatory consecutive sentence for his other conviction, thereby
reducing his total guidelines range for the combined convictions.
In 2008 Jackson pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute in excess of five kilograms of cocaine
hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and brandishing a firearm in
relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii).
The presentence investigation report set a base offense level of 32 for his drug
conviction based on U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(3), (c)(4) (2008), and after the
application of several adjustments, it assigned him a total offense level of 35. With
his criminal history category of III, his advisory guidelines range was 210 to 262
months imprisonment. In addition, his conviction for brandishing a firearm carried
a mandatory minimum 84-month sentence, which was required to run
consecutively to the sentence for the drug offense. Based on the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors, the district court varied downward and sentenced Jackson to 156
Case: 15-11391 Date Filed: 10/22/2015 Page: 2 of 5

-- 2 of 5 --

3
months for the drug conviction, followed by the mandatory consecutive 84-month
sentence for the firearm conviction, yielding a total sentence of 240 months.
In 2014 Jackson filed a pro se § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence,
contending that Amendment 782, which retroactively amended § 2D1.1, lowered
his offense level. The district court determined that, although Amendment 782
lowered the offense level for Jackson’s drug conviction, the downward variance he
had received rendered his current sentence lower than the amended guidelines
range. Because that variance was not for substantial assistance, the guidelines
prohibited a comparable reduction to the amended range. The district court
concluded that it lacked the authority to reduce Jackson’s sentence and denied his
§ 3582(c)(2) motion.
We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions about its authority
to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Douglas, 576 F.3d 1216,
1218 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009). Jackson is correct that Amendment 782 reduced his
offense level for his drug conviction to 33, yielding an amended guidelines range
of 168 to 210 months. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d); U.S.S.G., App. C, Amend. 782
(2014). But his sentence for the drug offense — 156 months — is below the
amended guidelines range, and the variance he received was not based on
substantial assistance to authorities. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A)–(B)
(providing that “the court shall not reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment
Case: 15-11391 Date Filed: 10/22/2015 Page: 3 of 5

-- 3 of 5 --

4
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) . . . to a term that is less than the minimum of the
amended guideline range” unless the original sentence was reduced pursuant to a
government motion for a downward variance based on substantial assistance). The
district court was not authorized by § 3582(c)(2) to reduce Jackson’s sentence. See
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2).
Jackson also contends that the district court should have reduced the
sentence for his firearm conviction from 84 months to 60 months because, in
violation of the rule announced in Alleyne, the government did not prove to a jury
beyond a reasonable doubt that he brandished a firearm. See Alleyne, 570 U.S. at
__, 133 S. Ct. at 2155. Because he raised this argument for the first time on
appeal, we review for plain error. See United States v. Harris, 741 F.3d 1245,
1248 (11th Cir. 2014). Under that standard, the defendant must show “(1) error,
(2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights. If those conditions are met,
we may exercise our discretion to correct the error only if the error seriously
affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id.
(citation omitted).
The district court did not err, plainly or otherwise, in failing to reduce
Jackson’s sentence for the firearm conviction because Alleyne is not an
amendment to the guidelines that would authorize a sentence reduction under
§ 3582(c)(2). See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); cf. United States v. Moreno, 421 F.3d
Case: 15-11391 Date Filed: 10/22/2015 Page: 4 of 5

-- 4 of 5 --

5
1217, 1220 (11th Cir. 2005) (holding that United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220,
125 S. Ct. 738 (2005) “is a Supreme Court decision, not a retroactively applicable
guideline amendment by the Sentencing Commission. Therefore, Booker is
inapplicable to § 3582(c)(2) motions”). For these reasons, we affirm the district
court’s denial of Jackson’s § 3582(c)(2) motion.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 15-11391 Date Filed: 10/22/2015 Page: 5 of 5

-- 5 of 5 --