United States v. Javier Maxwell ( 2016 )

Case: 15-12360 Date Filed: 02/04/2016 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-12360
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:10-cr-60186-FAM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAVIER MAXWELL,
a.k.a. Javier Babb Maxwell,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(February 4, 2016)
Before TJOFLAT, HULL and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-12360 Date Filed: 02/04/2016 Page: 2 of 4
Javier Maxwell, a federal prisoner convicted of a cocaine offense, appeals
pro se the district court’s denial of his second 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to
reduce his 120-month sentence. The district court denied the § 3582(c)(2) motion
because Maxwell’s sentence had already been reduced to the mandatory statutory
minimum and no further reduction was authorized by law. After review, we
affirm. 1
At Maxwell’s original 2010 sentencing, the district court calculated an
offense level of 32, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(3), and an advisory guidelines
range of 121 to 151 months’ imprisonment. The district court imposed a 121-
month sentence.
In March 2015, the district court granted Maxwell’s first pro se § 3582(c)(2)
motion based on Amendment 782, which reduced the base offense level for most
drug offenses. See U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 782. After Amendment 782,
Maxwell’s new offense level was 30 and his advisory guidelines range was 97 to
121 months. However, because Maxwell was subject to a 120-month statutory
mandatory minimum, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B), Maxwell’s advisory
guidelines range became 120 to 121 months, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(c).
Thus, the district court imposed the mandatory minimum 120-month sentence.
1
This Court reviews de novo a district court’s conclusion about the scope of its legal
authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
2
Case: 15-12360 Date Filed: 02/04/2016 Page: 3 of 4
In May 2015, Maxwell filed pro se this second § 3582(c)(2) motion based on
Amendment 782, arguing, inter alia, that in light of United States v. Booker, 543
U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), the district court was not bound by the mandatory
minimum sentence. The district court denied Maxwell’s second § 3583(c)(2),
explaining that it had already reduced Maxwell’s sentence to the statutory
minimum and was not authorized to reduce it any further.
The district court correctly concluded that Maxwell was not eligible for a
further sentence reduction. Maxwell’s 120-month sentence is at the mandatory
minimum required by 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B). After Amendment 782, the 120-
month mandatory minimum served as the floor for Maxwell’s amended guidelines
range, see U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(c)(2), and the district court did not have authority to
sentence him to a term less than that amended guidelines range. United States v.
Williams, 549 F.3d 1337, 1341 (11th Cir. 2008) (“[W]hen the mandatory minimum
exceeds some portion of the [guideline] range for the base offense level, the
‘applicable guideline range’ would be from that minimum to the upper end of the
original guideline range.”); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A), (B) (prohibiting
the district court from reducing a defendant’s sentence under § 3582(c)(2) below
the amended guidelines range). This is true even after Booker. See United States
Ciszkowski, 492 F.3d 1264, 1270 (11th Cir. 2007) (“Even after Booker, the district
court is bound by the statutory mandatory minimums.”).
3
Case: 15-12360 Date Filed: 02/04/2016 Page: 4 of 4
AFFIRMED.
4