United States v. Johnny Lee Leonard , 636 F. App'x 1001 ( 2016 )

Case: 15-13157 Date Filed: 02/08/2016 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-13157
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:94-cr-14098-WPD-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOHNNY LEE LEONARD,
a.k.a. Crow,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(February 8, 2016)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-13157 Date Filed: 02/08/2016 Page: 2 of 3
Johnny Lee Leonard, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for sentence reduction.
In 1995, Leonard was sentenced to life imprisonment pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §
841(b)(1)(A) after he was convicted for various drug-related offenses. He seeks
relief from this sentence under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. On
appeal, Leonard argues his sentence is unlawful because, under Alleyne v. United
States, 570 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), § 841(b)(1)(A) does not apply to him
and, consequently, the district court erred in refusing to grant him relief. However,
under the present procedural posture, Leonard cannot challenge the original
sentencing court’s § 841(b)(1)(A) decision. In addition, Leonard is not otherwise
eligible for relief under Amendment 782. Therefore, we affirm. 1
Section 3582(c)(2) only “permits a sentence reduction within the narrow
bounds established by” the guideline amendment at issue. Dillon v. United States,
560 U.S. 817, 831, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2694 (2010). “In making [a § 3582(c)(2)]
determination, the court shall substitute only the amendments . . . for the
corresponding guideline provisions that were applied when the defendant was
sentenced and shall leave all other [sentencing] decisions unaffected.” See
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1); United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 782 (11th Cir.
2000). Hence, § 3582(c)(2) “does not grant to the court jurisdiction to consider
1
Leonard also appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration. We
likewise affirm that denial.
2
Case: 15-13157 Date Filed: 02/08/2016 Page: 3 of 3
extraneous [non-guidelines] resentencing issues such as” whether the original
sentencing court erred in applying § 841(b)(1)(A) to Leonard. See Bravo, 203 F.3d
at 782. Moreover, Leonard is not otherwise eligible for relief under Amendment
782 because he “was sentenced on the basis of a mandatory minimum.” See
United States v. Mills, 613 F.3d 1070, 1078 (11th Cir. 2010); United States v.
Hippolyte, 712 F.3d 535, 540 (11th Cir. 2013).
AFFIRMED.
3