United States v. Quantavian Yemetrius Harris ( 2013 )

Case: 12-14324 Date Filed: 02/12/2013 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-14324
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:07-cr-00261-JSM-TBM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
QUANTAVIAN YEMETRIUS HARRIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(February 12, 2013)
Before MARCUS, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-14324 Date Filed: 02/12/2013 Page: 2 of 2
Quantavian Harris appeals pro se the denial of his motion to reduce his
sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). We affirm.
The district court did not err. Harris is ineligible for a sentence reduction
under Amendment 750 because he was sentenced as a career offender. See United
States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 568(2012). Harris also cannot obtain relief based on the lower mandatory minimum
sentence provided under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. The Act “is not a
guidelines amendment by the Sentencing Commission, but rather a statutory
change by Congress, and . . . does not serve as a basis for a . . . sentence reduction”
under section 3582(c)(2), and in any event, the lower mandatory sentence does not
apply retroactively to offenders who, like Harris, were sentenced before the
effective date of the Act. United States v. Berry, 701 F.3d 374, 377 (11th Cir.
2012). Harris argues, for the first time, that denying him the benefit of a reduced
sentence under the Act violates his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment
and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, but
we cannot consider these “extraneous sentencing issues.” United States v. Bravo,
203 F.3d 778, 782 (11th Cir. 2000). Harris may raise his constitutional arguments
in a collateral motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
We AFFIRM the denial of Harris’s motion to reduce his sentence.
2