UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
EDWIN JETER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
PER CURIAM: Appellant, a federal prisoner currently serving a 168-month sentence imposed following a plea of guilty to conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, challenges his sentence on the ground that the district court, in applying the Sentencing Guidelines, erred in denying him a minor role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Appellant is a career offender. Under the Guidelines, a defendant is a career offender if the following three elements are present (as they are here): (1) the defendant was at least eighteen years old at the time the defendant committed the instant offense of conviction, (2) the instant offense of conviction is a felony that is either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense, and (3) the defendant has at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. While a career offender’s criminal history category is always Category VI, § 4B1.1 indicates that with respect to the defendant’s offense level, as distinguished from his criminal history category, “[i]f an adjustment from § 3E1.1 (Acceptance of Responsibility) applies, [a court must] decrease the offense level by the number of levels corresponding to that adjustment.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. In contending that the court should have granted him a minor role adjustment under § 4B1.1, appellant relies on the rule of lenity. The rule of lenity applies if a statute — in this instance, a sentencing guideline — is ambiguous. United States v. Johnson, 155 F. 3d 682, 685 (3rd Cir.1998).
Because § 4B1.1, by its express terms, only authorizes an adjustment based on acceptance of responsibility, and does not mention the minor role adjustment, and since “the inclusion of one implies the exclusion of others,” United States v. Koonce, 991 F. 2d 693, 698 (11th Cir.1993), the guideline is not ambiguous and the rule of lenity does not apply. Johnson, 155 F. 3d at 685. Several of our sister circuits appear to hold that the minor role adjustment is not available to a defendant sentenced under the career offender provision. See id. at 684 & n. 4 (citing to the First, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits, all of which have held that mitigating role adjustments do not apply in the career offender scenario).
Today we make it clear that minor role adjustments are not available to defendants sentenced under § 4B1.1. Appellant’s sentence is, accordingly, AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Lockley, 632 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 2011)…. See United States v. Camacho-Ibarquen, 410 F. 3d 1307, 1315 (11th Cir.2005) (refusing to apply the rule of lenity upon finding § 2L1.2 unambiguous after application of the "normal rules of [statutory] construction”) (citing United States v. Jeter, 329 F. 3d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir.2003) and Holloway v. United States, 526 U.S. 1, 12 n. 14, 119 S.Ct. 966, 972 n. 14, 143 L.Ed.2d 1 (1999) ("We have repeatedly stated that the rule of lenity applies only if, after seizing everything from which aid can be derived, we…
-
United States v. Polar, 369 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2004)…tion No. 58. . In passing, Polar also contends that the rule of lenity requires that 18 U.S.C. § 1546 be interpreted to require an element of willfulness. However, the rule of lenity only applies if a statute is ambiguous. United States v. Jeter, 329 F. 3d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir.2003). Section 1546(a) is not ambiguous on the question of willfulness: the statute only requires that the defendant acted with knowledge. . To the extent that Polar, in his reply brief, argues that the coercive effect of the distr…
-
United States v. Elvis Fredy Camacho-Ibarquen, 410 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2005)…der § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) to an eight-level enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). We will apply the rule of lenity only if the provision being construed is still ambiguous after application of normal rules of construction. See United States v. Jeter, 329 F. 3d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir.2003); see also Holloway v. United States, 526 U.S. 1, 12 n. 14, 119 S.Ct. 966, 972 n. 14, 143 L.Ed.2d 1 (1999) (“We have repeatedly stated that the rule of lenity applies only if, after seizing everything from which aid can be deriv…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Koonce, 991 F.2d 693 (11th Cir. 1993)