United States v. Alexander Robiou , 468 F. App'x 944 ( 2012 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 12-10923 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar JUNE 25, 2012
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 1:07-cr-20778-JEM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ALEXANDER ROBIOU,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(June 25, 2012)
Before HULL, WILSON, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Alexander Robiou filed a motion for a sentence reduction under
§ 3582(c)(2) because the enactment of Amendment 750 to the Sentencing
Guidelines lowered the crack cocaine base offense levels in U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1. The district court denied his motion, and Robiou
timely appealed. After reviewing the briefs, we affirm the district court.
In 2007, Robiou pled guilty to two counts of possession with the intent to
distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Counts 1 and 2), one
count of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine base, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count 3), and one count of conspiracy to possess
with the intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 846 (Count 5). Because of Robiou’s prior felony drug conviction, Count
5 carried a statutory mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment.
The district court sentenced Robiou to 57 months’ imprisonment on Counts 1, 2,
and 3, and 120 months’ imprisonment on Count 5 with each sentence to run
concurrently. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35, Robiou’s
sentence was subsequently reduced to 100 months’ imprisonment on Count 5.
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). A defendant is ineligible for a sentence reduction
2
where an “amendment does not have the effect of lowering [his] applicable
guideline range because of the operation of another guideline or statutory
provision (e.g. a statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment).” U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10, cmt. n.1(A); see also United States v. Williams, 549 F.3d 1337, 1339–42
(11th Cir. 2008); Moore, 541 F.3d at 1330. Although Amendment 750 reduced
Robiou’s adjusted offense level under § 2D1.1, the district court sentenced him to
a term of imprisonment based on the statutory mandatory minimum. Therefore,
the district court properly denied Robiou’s motion to reduce his sentence because
Amendment 750 did not alter the statutory mandatory minimum 120 month
sentence that is required under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b).
AFFIRMED.
3