Case: 12-11734 Date Filed: 08/03/2012 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-11734
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:09-cr-00066-SPM-CAS-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DEREK LAMAR POPE, a.k.a. Tater,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(August 3, 2012)
Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Derek Lamar Pope, pro se, appeals the denial of his request to reduce his
sentence under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) in which he argued that, pursuant to the Fair
Sentencing Act and Amendment 750, his total sentence should be reduced. Here,
Case: 12-11734 Date Filed: 08/03/2012 Page: 2 of 2
however, Pope’s total sentence was based on the statutory mandatory minimum
rather than on offense level calculations. Accordingly, Amendment 750 did not
alter his guideline range. Nor does the Fair Sentencing Act provide any reason to
reduce his total sentence under § 3582(c)(2).
We review a district court’s denial of a defendant’s § 3582(c)(2) motion to
reduce sentence for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Mills,
613 F.3d 1070,
1074-75 (11th Cir. 2010).
A district court may modify a term of imprisonment if a defendant was
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). If that total sentence was based on something other than offense
level calculations, however, a guideline amendment would not impact his total
sentence, and he would be ineligible for relief under § 3582(c)(2). Mills,
613 F.3d
at 1076. Specifically, if the defendant=s conduct triggered a statutory mandatory
minimum, his total sentence was based on that minimum, not his guideline range.
Id. Thus, the district court properly denied Pope’s § 3582(c)(2) motion, and we
affirm.
AFFIRMED.
2
