United States v. Robert Butler ( 2014 )

Case: 13-13155 Date Filed: 06/10/2014 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-13155
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:95-cr-00430-WPD-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROBERT BUTLER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(June 10, 2014)
Before PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Case: 13-13155 Date Filed: 06/10/2014 Page: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Robert Butler appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) motion to modify his sentence. Butler argues that his sentence
violates his equal protection and due process rights. In addition, he argues that his
sentence should be reduced because the Fair Sentencing Act (“FSA”) lowers the
statutory sentencing range for his offense, which would affect the calculation of his
guideline ranges as a career offender. Finally, he argues that under Alleyne v.
United States, 570 U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013), he cannot be subject to a
sentence greater than the statutory maximum.
A. Equal Protection and Due Process
In a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding, we review de novo the scope of the district
court’s authority under the Guidelines. See United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323,
1326 (11th Cir. 2008). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), a court may not modify a
term of imprisonment except “in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to
a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been
lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In United
States v. Bravo, we held that the district court was correct in declining to consider
the defendant’s Eighth Amendment claim because § 3582(c) does not grant the
district court jurisdiction to consider such extraneous resentencing issues, and the
2
Case: 13-13155 Date Filed: 06/10/2014 Page: 3 of 5
defendant’s claim must brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 203 F.3d 778, 782 (11th
Cir. 2000).
Relief under § 3582(c)(2) is limited to circumstances in which a defendant
was sentenced based on sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by
the Sentencing Commission, and Butler’s claims of violations of his equal
protection and due process rights do not fall into this category. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2). Butler’s constitutional claims must be raised in a collateral
proceeding, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Bravo, 203 F.3d at 782.
B. Fair Sentencing Act
A district court may not reduce a defendant’s term of imprisonment under
§ 3582(c)(2) unless the defendant’s sentence was based upon a sentencing range
that the Sentencing Commission subsequently lowered, the district court considers
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and the reduction is consistent with applicable
policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
A reduction is not consistent with the Sentencing Commission’s policy statements
if it does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range
because of the operation of another guideline provision. U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) & comment. (n.1(A)).
In United States v. Berry, we rejected the defendant’s argument that he was
eligible for a sentence reduction under the FSA because the FSA was not a
3
Case: 13-13155 Date Filed: 06/10/2014 Page: 4 of 5
guidelines amendment by the Sentencing Commission, but a statutory amendment
by Congress, and did not serve as a basis for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction.
701 F.3d 374, 377 (11th Cir. 2012). Furthermore, we concluded that the
defendant’s claim failed because the district court sentenced him before the FSA’s
enactment, and the FSA’s mandatory minimums did not retroactively apply under
such circumstances. See id. at 377-78.
A § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce a sentence does not provide a basis for de
novo resentencing. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(3). Accordingly, the district court must
maintain all original sentencing determinations with the sole exception of applying
the relevant amended guideline range. United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780-
81 (11th Cir. 2000).
Butler was not entitled to relief under the FSA because the FSA is not a
guidelines amendment by the Sentencing Commission, and therefore, cannot serve
as the basis for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). See Berry, 701 F.3d at
377. Furthermore, Butler was sentenced before the effective date of the act, and it
is not retroactively applicable to him. Id. at 377-78.
In addition, Butler’s argument under Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. ___,
133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013), fails because the determinations by the jury are not
relevant to this proceeding. The drug quantity determined at Butler’s original
sentencing proceeding applies in his § 3582 proceeding, and furthermore,
4
Case: 13-13155 Date Filed: 06/10/2014 Page: 5 of 5
§ 3582(c) does not provide a basis for relief based on a challenge to Butler’s
conviction. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Butler’s § 3582 motion.
AFFIRMED.
5