United States v. Jerry Shuler ( 2009 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APRIL 15, 2009
No. 08-16570 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-80081-CR-DTKH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JERRY SHULER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(April 15, 2009)
Before CARNES, HULL and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jerry Shuler, a federal prisoner convicted of crack cocaine offenses, appeals
the district court’s denial of his pro se 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduced
sentence. After review, we affirm.1
Under § 3582(c)(2), a district court may modify an already incarcerated
defendant’s term of imprisonment if the defendant’s sentence was “based on a
sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(o).” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). However,
“[w]here a retroactively applicable guideline amendment reduces a defendant’s
base offense level, but does not alter the sentencing range upon which his or her
sentence was based, § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a reduction in sentence.”
United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S.
Ct. 965 (2009); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). Thus, a reduction is not
authorized if an applicable amendment does not lower a defendant’s applicable
guidelines range “because of the operation of another guideline or statutory
provision (e.g., a statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment).” U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A). Shuler’s § 3582(c)(2) motion was based on Amendment
706 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which reduced the base offense levels in
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) applicable to crack cocaine offenses.
The district court did not err in concluding that Shuler was ineligible for a §
3582(c)(2) reduction. At his original sentencing, Shuler’s initial guidelines range,
1
“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).
2
based on § 2D1.1(c)’s drug quantity table, was 97 to 121 months’ imprisonment.
However, because Shuler was subject to a statutory mandatory minimum sentence
of 120 months’ imprisonment, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), Shuler’s
guidelines range became 120 to 121 months. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(c). The
district court imposed the statutory mandatory minimum 120-month sentence.
Shuler’s 120-month sentence was not based on the amount of crack cocaine
attributed to him under § 2D1.1(c) to calculate his base offense level, but rather
upon the statutory mandatory minimum. See United States v. Williams, 549 F.3d
1337, 1339-40 (11th Cir. 2008) (explaining that a defendant sentenced to a
statutory mandatory minimum sentence is not eligible for a sentence reduction
based on Amendment 706 because Amendment 706 had no effect on the statutory
mandatory minimum sentence).2 Thus, even though Amendment 706 lowered the
base offense level for Shuler’s crack cocaine offense by two levels, it did not lower
Shuler’s ultimate sentencing range by virtue of the statutory mandatory minimum.
Because Amendment 706 had no effect on Shuler’s sentencing range, Shuler was
not eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction.
AFFIRMED.
2
Shuler concedes that Williams is binding precedent, but raises this issue to preserve it
for further review. See Cargill v. Turpin, 120 F.3d 1366, 1386 (11th Cir. 1997) (explaining that
we are bound by our prior panel precedent unless it is overturned by the Supreme Court or this
Court sitting en banc).
3