United States v. Renol Murat , 562 F. App'x 880 ( 2014 )

Case: 13-13225 Date Filed: 04/07/2014 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-13225
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:08-cr-20479-UU-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RENOL MURAT,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 7, 2014)
Before WILSON, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Renol Murat, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his
second request for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Murat
Case: 13-13225 Date Filed: 04/07/2014 Page: 2 of 3
pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm (Count 1),
18 U.S.C. § 922(g), one count of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine
(Count 2), 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and one count of possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking felony (Count 3), 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). He
received a sentence of 60 months’ imprisonment as to Counts 1 and 2, and 60
months’ imprisonment as to Count 3.
On appeal, Murat argues that that the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA),
Pub. L. No. 111-220, § 2(a), 124 Stat. 2372, should apply retroactively to
eliminate the statutory mandatory minimum in his pre-FSA sentencing, which
occurred in December 2008. He also raises an equal-protection challenge based on
an alleged disparity in treatment between those sentenced before and after the
enactment of the FSA.
“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. Jones, 548 F.3d
1366, 1368 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
The district court determined that it lacked jurisdiction over Murat’s motion
because Murat’s sentence was based on a mandatory minimum. See United States
v. Mills, 613 F.3d 1070, 1078 (11th Cir. 2010) (“The law is clear that a sentencing
court lacks jurisdiction to consider a § 3582(c)(2) motion, even when an
amendment would lower the defendant’s otherwise-applicable Guidelines
2
Case: 13-13225 Date Filed: 04/07/2014 Page: 3 of 3
sentencing range, when the defendant was sentenced on the basis of a mandatory
minimum.”). Even if the district court had jurisdiction, Murat’s FSA claim would
still fail because the “FSA is not a guidelines amendment by the Sentencing
Commission, but rather a statutory change by Congress, and thus it does not serve
as a basis for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction.” United States v. Berry, 701 F.3d
374, 377 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). Additionally, the FSA does not apply to
defendants sentenced prior to the date the FSA was enacted, August 3, 2010. Id.Murat was sentenced in December 2008, so the FSA clearly does not apply.
Similarly, the district court correctly declined to hear Murat’s claim that his
sentence violates the equal protection clause because such a claim is not
cognizable under § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 782
(11th Cir. 2000) (noting that a § 3582(c)(2) motion does not grant jurisdiction to
hear a constitutional challenge to a sentence).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s decision to deny Murat’s motion
for a reduced sentence.
AFFIRMED.
3