United States v. Albert Terrill Jones
696 F. App'x 435
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2003 a jury convicted Albert Jones of a drug conspiracy involving powder cocaine, crack cocaine, and marijuana; at sentencing the court attributed at least 15 kg powder cocaine and set a total offense level of 38, sentencing him to 300 months.
- Jones did not challenge the district court’s drug-quantity finding on direct appeal.
- In 2008 the district court granted Jones’s § 3582(c)(2) motion under Amendment 706 (crack reduction), reduced his total offense level from 38 to 36, and resentenced him to 243 months, but later concluded it had erred because the powder-cocaine quantity still precluded relief.
- While an appeal of the 2008 amended judgment was pending, the district court acknowledged it had overlooked the original 15 kg powder-cocaine finding when granting the Amendment 706 reduction.
- In 2014 Jones filed another § 3582(c)(2) motion (Amendment 782) and a Rule 36 motion to correct the record; the district court denied Rule 36 relief and the § 3582(c)(2) motion, concluding the original drug-quantity finding remained valid and any change would be substantive, not clerical.
- Jones appealed the denial of his Rule 36 motion, arguing the record should be corrected to reflect a reduced powder-cocaine quantity (based on the fact the court had reduced his sentence in 2008).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 36 permits correction of the district court’s original drug-quantity finding | Jones: Rule 36 should correct the record to reflect that the court’s later actions show it had found less than 15 kg powder cocaine | Government/District Ct: The original quantity finding stands; any change would be substantive, not clerical | Denied — Rule 36 cannot be used to alter substantive fact findings like drug-quantity determinations |
| Whether the district court in 2008 actually amended its original drug-quantity finding when reducing the sentence | Jones: The 2008 reduction necessarily implies the court lowered the powder-cocaine finding | District Ct: The 2008 grant was an error of omission (overlooking the original finding); it did not amend the initial quantity finding | Held — The court did not amend the original drug-quantity finding when it granted relief in 2008 |
| Whether § 3582(c)(2) allowed revisiting original sentencing determinations (drug quantity) | Jones: Reduction under Amendment 706 indicates eligibility, implying quantity finding was or could be changed | District Ct: § 3582(c)(2) adjustments do not permit de novo resentencing or alteration of original findings except the amended guideline range | Held — § 3582(c)(2) cannot be used to revisit or change original sentencing factfindings |
| Whether Amendment 782 entitled Jones to a further reduction | Jones: Amendment 782 lowers base offense level and thus should reduce his guideline range | District Ct: Even under Amendment 782 his guideline range remained the same as already adjusted in 2008 | Held — No additional reduction; Amendment 782 did not lower his applicable guideline range |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Davis, 841 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2016) (Rule 36 may not be used to make substantive alterations to a criminal sentence)
- United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778 (11th Cir. 2000) (§ 3582(c)(2) does not constitute a de novo resentencing; original sentencing determinations remain unchanged except amended guideline range)
- United States v. Portillo, 363 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2004) (clerical mistakes under Rule 36 are minor and mechanical in nature)
- United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2008) (a defendant is ineligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief if an amendment does not lower the sentencing range on which the original sentence was based)