Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Jarvis

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

February 22, 2018

United States of America, Appellee,
v.
Todd Jarvis, AKA Mike Hunt, Waketa Coleman, AKA Ma, Andre Maldonado, AKA Gonzo, Kenneth Mitchell, AKA Beaver, Dana Brown, Kevin Ladd, Scott Laduke, AKA Scott Clark, Defendants, Anthony Carosella, Defendant-Appellant.

          Argued: February 7, 2018

         On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Vermont

         Appeal from a final order of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont (Murtha, J.) denying defendant-appellant's motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) and Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Defendant-appellant contends that the district court erred in concluding that his amended Guidelines range remained the same, rendering him ineligible for a sentence reduction.

          Paul J. Van de Graaf, Assistant United States Attorney (Gregory L. Waples, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Christina E. Nolan, United States Attorney for the District of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, for Appellee.

          Barclay T. Johnson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, for Michael L. Desautels, Federal Public Defender for the District of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, for Defendant-Appellant.

          Before: Walker, Lynch, and Chin, Circuit Judges.

          PER CURIAM:

         In this case, defendant-appellant Anthony Carosella pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine base and heroin, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and conspiracy to burglarize pharmacies and was sentenced in 2011 to concurrent 120-month terms of imprisonment. In 2016, Carosella moved to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 to the Guidelines ("U.S.S.G."), which lowered the base offense level for his drug conviction by two levels. The district court determined that Carosella was ineligible for a sentence reduction because, even with the two-level decrease in the offense level for the drug conviction, his amended Guidelines range remained the same as it was when he was initially sentenced. Carosella now appeals, arguing that the district court erred in recalculating his Guidelines range. For the reasons set forth below, we disagree and affirm the district court's ruling.

         BACKGROUND

         On May 5, 2011, pursuant to his guilty pleas to three counts of a superseding information, the district court sentenced Carosella to concurrent 120-month terms of imprisonment for: conspiracy to distribute cocaine base and heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B) and 846; conspiracy to commit armed robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a); and conspiracy to burglarize pharmacies in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2118(b) and (d), which encompassed three separate pharmacy burglaries. At sentencing, the court divided Carosella's offenses into five groups: Group 1 (drugs); Group 2 (armed robbery); Group 3 (the first pharmacy burglary); Group 4 (the second pharmacy burglary); and Group 5 (the third pharmacy burglary). The court applied the grouping rules under U.S.S.G. § 3D1.4, calculated a total offense level of 30, and then granted credit for acceptance of responsibility, resulting in an adjusted total offense level of 27. Based on Carosella's Category IV criminal history, the court determined that the Guidelines range was 100 to 125 months. The court denied Carosella's request for a non-Guidelines sentence.

         In 2014, Amendment 782 to the Guidelines, made retroactively applicable by Amendment 788, lowered the base offense level for Carosella's drug conviction by two levels. On December 2, 2016, Carosella filed a motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

         On March 16, 2017, the district court issued an order denying Carosella's motion. United States v. Carosella, No. 1:10-CR-110 (JGM), 2017 WL 1025806, at *1 (D. Vt. Mar. 16, 2017). After lowering the offense level for Carosella's drug conviction (Group 1) from 28 to 26, the court determined the amended Guidelines range by following the same grouping analysis it used in 2011. As it had done before, the district court applied the grouping rules under U.S.S.G. § 3D1.4, and the resulting calculation was again a total offense level of 30. The court again granted credit for acceptance of responsibility, resulting once more in an adjusted total offense level of 27.

         Because of the operation of the grouping rules, Carosella's total offense level did not change. Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3D1.4, the district court added two levels -- which it had not added in 2011 -- because the lowered base offense level also lowered the differential between the highest offense level (Group 1) and the offense level for the three pharmacy burglaries (Groups 3, 4 and 5).[1] That two-level increase offset the two-level decrease from Amendment 782. Accordingly, the district court concluded that Carosella's amended Guidelines range remained the same and he was therefore ineligible for a sentence reduction.

         On appeal Carosella argues that the district court erred by adding the two levels after lowering the base offense level for his drug conviction, because U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1) mandates that a district court "shall leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected" when applying a retroactive amendment. Instead, Carosella argues that the only change the district court should have made was to apply the two-level decrease from Amendment 782, which would have yielded a total offense level of 28, an adjusted total offense level of 25, and an amended Guidelines range of 84 to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.