United States v. Richard James Bassett, Jr. ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •              Case: 12-16173    Date Filed: 05/17/2013   Page: 1 of 2
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 12-16173
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 6:01-cr-00006-JA-GJK-1
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    versus
    RICHARD JAMES BASSETT, JR.,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Florida
    ________________________
    (May 17, 2013)
    Before HULL, PRYOR and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Richard Bassett Jr. appeals the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence
    based on Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). The
    Case: 12-16173     Date Filed: 05/17/2013    Page: 2 of 2
    United States moves for a summary affirmance and to stay the briefing schedule.
    Because the “position [of the United States] . . . is clearly right as a matter of law
    so that there [is] no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,” Groendyke
    Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 
    406 F.2d 1158
    , 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), we grant the motion
    for summary affirmance and dismiss as moot the motion to stay the briefing
    schedule.
    Bassett’s arguments are foreclosed by our precedent. We have held that
    defendants, like Bassett, whose sentences are based on the career offender
    guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, not on the drug quantity tables, id. § 2D1.1, are
    ineligible for a reduction of their sentence under Amendment 750. United States v.
    Lawson, 
    686 F.3d 1317
    , 1321 (11th Cir. 2012); United States v. Moore, 
    541 F.3d 1323
    , 1327–30 (11th Cir. 2008). Bassett argues that the district court should have
    considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), but a district court
    considers those sentencing factors only when it has the authority to reduce a
    sentence and decides whether to grant a reduction. The district court lacked the
    authority to reduce Barrett’s sentence.
    We AFFIRM the denial of Bassett’s motion to reduce his sentence, and we
    DISMISS as moot the motion to stay the briefing schedule.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-16173

Judges: Hull, Pryor, Jordan

Filed Date: 5/17/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024