United States v. Ray A. Bennett ( 2009 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Sept. 29, 2009
No. 09-11639 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 91-00051-CR-J-16-HTS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RAY BENNETT,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(September 29, 2009)
Before BIRCH, HULL and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Ray Bennett appeals the denial of his motion for a reduction of sentence. 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Bennett’s motion was based on Amendment 706 to the
Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.
Bennett challenges the denial of his motion to reduce on four grounds, all of
which fail. First, Bennett argues that the district court was entitled to reduce his
sentence under Amendment 706, but his argument is foreclosed by our decision in
United States v. Williams, 549 F.3d 1337, 1339 (11th Cir. 2008), because Bennett
was sentenced to a statutory mandatory term of life imprisonment. Second,
Bennett complains that the district court failed to address his arguments about drug
quantity and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000), but a
district court may not revisit any “original sentencing determinations.” United
States Sentencing Guidelines § 1B1.10(b)(1) (Nov. 2008); see United States v.
Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 781 (11th Cir. 2000). Third, Bennett argues that the district
court had discretion to reduce his sentence below the amended range under United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and Kimbrough v. United
States, 522 U.S. 85, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007), but those decisions do not apply to a
motion to reduce a sentence. See United States v. Melvin, 556 F.3d 1190, 1191–93
(11th Cir. 2009). Fourth, Bennett argues, for the first time on appeal, that the
refusal to treat the Guidelines as advisory violated his rights to equal protection
and due process, but Bennett was sentenced to a statutory mandatory term of life
2
imprisonment based on his prior convictions. See United States v. Castaing-Sosa,
530 F.3d 1358, 1360–61 (11th Cir. 2008). The district court did not err by denying
Bennett’s motion.
The denial of Bennett’s motion for a reduced sentence is AFFIRMED.
3