United States v. James A. McGee ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •              Case: 15-11716   Date Filed: 12/02/2015   Page: 1 of 2
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 15-11716
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 0:93-cr-06104-DTKH-1
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    JAMES A. MCGEE,
    a.k.a. James Allen McGee,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Florida
    ________________________
    (December 2, 2015)
    Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Case: 15-11716      Date Filed: 12/02/2015   Page: 2 of 2
    James McGee appeals the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence. 18
    U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). McGee sought a reduction based on Amendment 782 to the
    Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.
    The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied McGee’s
    motion because Amendment 782 did not alter his sentencing range. At sentencing,
    the district court found, over McGee’s objection, that he was responsible for
    17,593 grams of ephedrine that could be used to produce 16.18 kilograms of pure
    methamphetamine. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(3)(C)(1). Based on that drug quantity,
    McGee was ineligible for a sentence reduction because his base offense level
    remained unchanged. 
    Id. § 2D1.1(c)(1)
    (assigning a base offense level of 38 for
    cases involving 4.5 kilograms or more of methamphetamine). McGee argues that
    he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to challenge the amount of
    methamphetamine attributed to him, but the district court could not disturb its
    earlier finding about drug quantity when considering McGee’s motion to reduce.
    See United States v. Bravo, 
    203 F.3d 778
    , 780 (11th Cir. 2000). Because McGee
    was ineligible for a reduction of his sentence, the district court lacked the authority
    to consider the statutory sentencing factors or to exercise its discretion to impose a
    new sentence. 
    Id. at 781.
    We AFFIRM the denial of McGee’s motion to reduce his sentence.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-11716

Judges: Wilson, Pryor, Rosenbaum

Filed Date: 12/2/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024