United States v. Norris Lundy , 516 F. App'x 770 ( 2013 )

Case: 12-14351 Date Filed: 04/09/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-14351
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cr-20632-KMM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
NORRIS LUNDY,
a.k.a. Polo,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 9, 2013)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-14351 Date Filed: 04/09/2013 Page: 2 of 3
Norris Lundy, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s
denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction, pursuant to
Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines. On appeal, Lundy asserts that he is
eligible for a sentence reduction because the district court based his sentence on a
framework that Amendment 750 retroactively changed.
We review de novo a district court’s legal conclusions regarding the scope
of its authority under the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d
1323, 1326 (11th Cir. 2008). In liberally construing pro se pleadings, we hold pro
se litigants to a less stringent standard. Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252
(11th Cir. 2008).
We have held that § 3582(c)(2) only provides a district court with the
discretion to reduce a sentence that was based on a sentencing range that has been
lowered by the Sentencing Commission. See Moore, 541 F.3d at 1327. Section
3582(c)(2) does not provide a basis for a de novo resentencing. United States v.
Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 781 (11th Cir. 2000). If a defendant is a career offender, his
base offense level is generally determined under the career-offender guideline in
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 and not the drug-quantity guideline in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. See
Moore, 541 F.3d at 1327–28. As such, a retroactive amendment to the drug
quantity table at § 2D1.1 does not have the effect of lowering the career-offender-
2
Case: 12-14351 Date Filed: 04/09/2013 Page: 3 of 3
based guideline range within the meaning of § 3582(c)(2), and the district courts
are not authorized to reduce a sentence on that basis. See id.
The district court properly denied Lundy’s § 3582(c)(2) request because he
was sentenced as a career offender. Amendment 750 did not lower his applicable
guideline range.
AFFIRMED.
3