United States v. Kenneth Wingfield, Jr. , 630 F. App'x 957 ( 2015 )

Case: 15-12772 Date Filed: 11/02/2015 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-12772
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:08-cr-80115-DTKH-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
KENNETH WINGFIELD, JR.,
a.k.a. Kenny,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(November 2, 2015)
Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-12772 Date Filed: 11/02/2015 Page: 2 of 3
Kenneth Wingfield, Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial
of his motion to reduce sentence, brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and
Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. On appeal, Wingfield argues that
the district court violated his due process rights by failing to hold an evidentiary
hearing on whether Wingfield was originally sentenced as a career offender and is
therefore ineligible for a sentence reduction. 1 After review, 2 we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion or violate Wingfield’s due
process rights by declining to hold an evidentiary hearing. Wingfield was given
(1) adequate notice of the government’s and the probation office’s position on his
motion and (2) an opportunity to respond. See United States v. Jules, 595 F.3d
1239, 1243 (11th Cir. 2010) (“[E]ach party must be given notice of and an
opportunity to contest new information relied on by the district court in a §
3582(c)(2) proceeding. . . . [A]lthough a hearing is a permissible vehicle for
contesting any new information, the district court may instead allow the parties to
contest new information in writing.”). Furthermore, an evidentiary hearing was
unnecessary because both the district court and this Court previously held that
Wingfield’s sentence was based on the career offender provisions of § 4B1.1. See
1
Wingfield does not directly argue the merits of the district court’s decision but rather
challenges propriety of the district court’s reaching its decision without first holding an
evidentiary hearing.
2
We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision not to hold an evidentiary
hearing. See United States v. Yesil, 991 F.2d 1527, 1531 (11th Cir. 1992).
2
Case: 15-12772 Date Filed: 11/02/2015 Page: 3 of 3
United States v. Wingfield, 468 F. App’x 937, 938 (11th Cir. 2012) (unpublished)
(“Wingfield's arguments are foreclosed by our precedent. A defendant sentenced
as a career offender, whose guideline range was not based on the offense level for
crack cocaine, is ineligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2).”). Because
Wingfield presented no argument suggesting that an exception to law-of-the-case
doctrine applies, Wingfield’s claim is barred. See United States v. Jordan, 429
F.3d 1032, 1035 (11th Cir. 2005) (“The law-of-the-case doctrine bars relitigation
of issues that were decided, either explicitly or by necessary implication, in an
earlier appeal of the same case.”); United States v. White, 846 F.2d 678, 685 (11th
Cir. 1988) (listing exceptions to law-of-the-case doctrine).
AFFIRMED.
3