from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma (D.C. No. 5:98-CR-00084-C-1)
on the briefs.[*]
W. Creager (Mark A. Yancey, United States Attorney, with him
on the briefs), Assistant United States Attorney, Office of
the United States Attorney, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for
M. Otto, Federal Public Defender, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,
TYMKOVICH Chief Judge, BACHARACH and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
BACHARACH, Circuit Judge.
appeal grew out of the sentencing and resentencing of Mr.
Gregory Womack, who was convicted of federal crimes involving
the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine. In a
prior appeal, we upheld the initial sentence based on the
sentencing guidelines in effect at the time of the crimes.
But after issuance of our decision, the U.S. Sentencing
Commission adopted two guideline amendments: Amendment 782
and Amendment 750. Amendment 782 lowered the base offense
levels for certain drug weights. But Amendment 750 had the
opposite effect for crimes involving methamphetamine,
promulgating a revised drug-equivalency table in which each
gram of methamphetamine had a higher marijuana-equivalent
weight than when Mr. Womack had committed his crimes.
amendments were considered together, Mr. Womack's
guideline range would remain what it had been at the time of
the crimes. If Amendment 782 were considered in isolation,
though, the guideline range would be reduced and Mr. Womack
would be eligible for a sentence reduction.
Womack successfully moved for a reduction in his sentence
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), arguing to the district
court that the only relevant amendment was Amendment 782. We
disagree. In our view, Amendment 750 was also relevant and
precluded Mr. Womack from obtaining a reduction in his
The guideline range is based partly on drug weight, which
involves a conversion to marijuana equivalents when multiple
drugs are involved.
1998, Mr. Womack was convicted of crimes involving
methamphetamine. Nonetheless, the district court found that
Mr. Womack's relevant conduct also involved cocaine and
marijuana. For sentencing, all of these drugs could be
considered. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 applic. note 5
incorporate these drugs into Mr. Womack's sentence, the
district court had to quantify their weights. The court then
added these weights and used the total to calculate the
guideline range; the greater the weight, the harsher the
guideline range. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)
(2012); U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) (2014).
only a single drug is involved, calculation of the weight is
simple. But when multiple drugs are involved, they must be
combined. To combine these drug weights, the court must
convert the various drugs into an equivalent marijuana unit.
See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, applic. note 8(B) (2014).
The district court did so, converting all of the drug weights
to their marijuana equivalents and adding these figures.
The district court imposed concurrent sentences of 360 months
and 240 months.
was a marijuana equivalent of 33, 592.6547 kilograms, which
corresponded to a final offense level of 42 and triggered a
guideline range of 360 months to life imprisonment. Using
this guideline range, the court imposed concurrent terms of
360 months and 240 months. On direct appeal, we held that the
final offense level should have been 40 (rather than 42) and
that the marijuana equivalent should have been roughly 26,
000 kilograms (rather than 33, 592.6547 kilograms). Even with
these corrections, ...