United States v. Charles Wright, Jr. , 513 F. App'x 839 ( 2013 )

Case: 12-15757 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-15757
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:05-cr-00033-MP-GRJ-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll l Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHARLES WRIGHT, JR.,
a.k.a., Big C,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(March 20, 2013)
Before PRYOR, MARTIN and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-15757 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 2 of 2
Charles Wright, Jr., appeals pro se the denial of his motion to reduce his
sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Wright’s motion was based on Amendment 750
to the Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.
The district court did not err by denying Wright’s motion. Amendment 750
did not have the effect of lowering Wright’s sentencing range. Because Wright
was, without objection, held responsible for at least 27.05 kilograms of cocaine
base, he was ineligible for a sentence reduction. See United States Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(c)(1) (establishing a maximum base offense level of
38 for 8.4 kilograms or more of cocaine base); see also United States v. Davis, 587
F.3d 1300, 1303–04 (11th Cir. 2009). Wright challenges the amount of drugs
attributable to him and the failure of the district court to account for his youth, but
in determining eligibility for a reduction of sentence “all original sentencing
determinations remain unchanged.” United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 781
(11th Cir. 2000); see United States v. Cothran, 106 F.3d 1560, 1562–63 (11th Cir.
1997) (holding that a district court cannot reexamine its earlier finding of the
quantity of drugs when applying a Sentencing Guideline retroactively to decide a
motion to reduce a sentence).
We AFFIRM the denial of Wright’s motion.
2