United States v. Emory Lee Tellis
748 F.3d 1305
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Tellis pleaded guilty in 2001 to conspiracy to sell crack cocaine and was designated a career offender in his 2002 PSR; he did not object to that designation.
- Initial guideline calculations: drug table base level 38; career-offender table produced level 37; after 3-level reductions for substantial assistance and acceptance of responsibility his offense level was 32 and he was sentenced to 210 months.
- Amendment 706 (two-level reduction for crack) was made retroactive in 2008; the court applied it and, accounting for career-offender status, reduced Tellis’s sentence to 188 months in 2008. The parties jointly stipulated that 188 months was appropriate under § 1B1.10 and § 3582(c)(2).
- Amendment 750 (conforming Guidelines to the Fair Sentencing Act) was made retroactive in 2011 and would lower the § 2D1.1 base level further (to 34), but Probation and the government concluded Tellis remained a career offender so his applicable guideline range would not change.
- The district court denied a second § 3582(c)(2) reduction under Amendment 750 on the ground that Tellis’s applicable guideline range remained governed by the career-offender provision; Tellis appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tellis is eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction under Amendment 750 | Tellis: original sentence was based on drug-quantity guideline, not on career-offender range, so Amendment 750 lowers his applicable guideline range | Gov't/District: Tellis was determined to be a career offender; after the 2008 § 3582(c)(2) reduction the career-offender range controlled, so Amendment 750 does not lower the applicable range | Court: Affirmed — Tellis is not eligible because career-offender status governs and Amendment 750 did not lower the applicable range |
| Whether applying the career-offender guideline now would impermissibly effect a resentencing rather than a modification | Tellis: treating career-offender now is a de facto resentencing since his original sentence was based on drug quantity | Gov't/District: The district court properly considered career-offender status when implementing the 2008 reduction; § 3582(c)(2) requires looking to the applicable guideline range including § 4B1.1 | Court: Affirmed — considering career-offender status in the modification was proper and not an improper resentencing |
| Whether Freeman undermines Moore and related precedent on § 3582(c)(2) and career-offender reductions | Tellis: Freeman undermines Moore and thus the line of Eleventh Circuit cases upholding denial when career-offender range remains unchanged | Gov't/District: Freeman did not address § 4B1.1 and did not overturn Moore; Moore remains binding | Court: Affirmed — Freeman did not overrule Moore; Moore controls and supports denial of relief |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir.) (retroactive amendment does not trigger § 3582(c)(2) when sentence is based on career-offender guideline and amendment does not change that range)
- United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir.) (Moore remains binding precedent on § 3582(c)(2) and career-offender issues)
- Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (2011) (addressed § 3582(c)(2) eligibility for Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreements; no majority opinion and did not decide § 4B1.1 issue)
- United States v. Glover, 686 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir.) (describing Amendment 750 and its effect to conform Guidelines to the Fair Sentencing Act)
- United States v. Hamilton, 715 F.3d 328 (11th Cir.) (defendant bears burden to show a retroactive amendment actually lowered his guideline range)
- United States v. Davis, 587 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir.) (appellate review standards for factual findings underlying § 3582(c)(2) legal conclusions)