United States v. Eric Ricardo Bright ( 2009 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
NOVEMBER 2, 2009
No. 09-13100 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 04-00034-CR-5-MCR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ERIC RICARDO BRIGHT,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(November 2, 2009)
Before CARNES, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Eric Ricardo Bright appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence. Bright argues that Amendment 706,
reduced not only his base offense level, but also the applicable statutory minimum
term of life imprisonment. See U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 706 (2007).
II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
“We review de novo a district court’s conclusions about the scope of its
legal authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).” United States v. James, 548 F.3d
983, 984 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (citation omitted).
III. DISCUSSION
A district court may modify a sentence “in the case of a defendant who has
been sentenced . . . based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been
lowered by the Sentencing Commission . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (emphasis
added). In such a case, the court may reduce the defendant’s sentence after
considering applicable § 3553(a) factors, “if such a reduction is consistent with
applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” Id. A
reduction is not consistent with applicable policy statements and is not authorized
if the retroactive amendment “does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s
2
applicable guideline range.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). The retroactive
amendment at issue here is Amendment 706, which reduces the base offense levels
for crack cocaine offenses sentenced under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. See U.S.S.G. app.
C, amend. 706 (2007).
In a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding, a district court does not have unfettered
authority to reduce a defendant’s sentence. Instead, the court must determine the
amended guideline range that would have been applicable to Bright if Amendment
706 had been in effect at the time Bright was sentenced. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 (b)(1).
A court shall only substitute the amendments that have been listed for retroactive
application and “shall leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected.”
Id. If the application of a retroactive amendment did not have the effect of
lowering the defendant’s sentencing range, then the district court has no
jurisdiction to reduce a defendant’s sentence. See United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d
778, 781 (11th Cir. 2000).
Here, the district court properly denied Bright’s motion for relief under
§ 3582(c)(2) because his guideline range was not affected by Amendment 706.
Instead, his sentence was based on the statutory minimum sentence of life
imprisonment for recidivist offenders with two or more prior felony drug
convictions. See United States v. Williams, 549 F.3d 1337, 1342 (11th Cir. 2008)
3
(per curiam) (holding that a defendant was not eligible for a sentence reduction
under Amendment 706 because he “was subject to a statutory mandatory minimum
that replaced his original sentencing guideline range . . . ”).
Furthermore, in this § 3582(c)(2) proceeding, Bright cannot challenge the
district court’s original sentencing determination that he was subject to the
mandatory statutory minimum penalty. See Bravo, 203 F.3d at 781 (holding that,
in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings, “all original sentencing determinations remain
unchanged with the sole exception of the guideline range that has been amended
since the original sentencing” (emphasis in original)).
Bright was subject to a statutory minimum that replaced the original
sentencing guideline range to which Amendment 706 applies. As a result, his
sentence was not “based on” the amendment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Bright’s § 3582(c)(2) motion
to reduce his sentence.
AFFIRMED.
4