United States v. Matthew Wayne Oxendine
708 F. App'x 632
| 11th Cir. | 2018Background
- Defendant Matthew Oxendine filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) seeking a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines.
- Oxendine pleaded guilty to a drug offense, but at sentencing the district court applied the career-offender guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, to calculate his total offense level and guideline range rather than the drug-quantity table in § 2D1.1.
- Amendment 782 lowered base offense levels in the § 2D1.1 drug-quantity table by two levels and is retroactive.
- The district court denied the § 3582(c)(2) motion because the amendment to § 2D1.1 did not lower Oxendine’s guideline range, which was determined by § 4B1.1.
- Oxendine appealed, arguing that after the Supreme Court’s decision in Beckles v. United States, § 4B1.1 should be considered inoperative or otherwise not bar a § 3582(c)(2) reduction based on Amendment 782.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Oxendine is eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 | Oxendine: Beckles makes § 4B1.1 inoperative or invalidates its use, so his sentence was effectively based on § 2D1.1 and Amendment 782 lowers his range | Government: Oxendine was sentenced as a career offender under § 4B1.1; Amend. 782 to § 2D1.1 does not alter a career offender’s guideline range, so § 3582(c)(2) relief is unavailable | Court: Affirmed denial. Amendment 782 did not lower Oxendine’s guideline range because his range was set by § 4B1.1; Beckles did not render § 4B1.1 inoperative or permit relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (held the advisory Guidelines are not subject to a vagueness challenge; § 4B1.2(a)’s residual clause not void for vagueness)
- United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2008) (retroactive amendment that lowers base offense level in § 2D1.1 does not authorize § 3582(c)(2) relief where guideline range was set by § 4B1.1)
- United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2012) (drug offender sentenced under career-offender guideline has range calculated from § 4B1.1, not § 2D1.1)
- United States v. Colon, 707 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2013) (standard of review: de novo review of district court’s legal conclusions about § 3582(c)(2) authority)
- United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778 (11th Cir. 2000) (district court must recalculate guidelines using amended guideline but keep other original guideline decisions intact)