United States v. Michael Deangelo Griffin , 471 F. App'x 849 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                             [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________           FILED
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    No. 11-15632         ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    Non-Argument Calendar        MAY 24, 2012
    ________________________        JOHN LEY
    CLERK
    D.C. Docket No. 2:05-cr-00458-IPJ-PWG-1
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    MICHAEL DEANGELO GRIFFIN,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Alabama
    ________________________
    (May 24, 2012)
    Before MARCUS, MARTIN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Michael Griffin, proceeding pro se, appeals the denial of his motion for a
    sentence reduction under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(2). On June 15, 2006, Griffin was
    sentenced to sixty-three months imprisonment for one count of possession of
    cocaine base with intent to distribute. On March 6, 2009, that sentence was
    reduced to the statutory mandatory minimum of sixty months imprisonment. On
    August 22, 2011, Griffin filed a motion under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(2), seeking a
    further reduction in his sentence. On November 10, 2011, the district court denied
    that motion.
    On appeal, Griffin argues that a reduction in his sentence is warranted in
    light of the factors set forth in 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a). Our precedent, however,
    makes it clear that a defendant cannot obtain a sentence reduction under Section
    3582(c)(2) if his sentence is already at the statutory mandatory minimum. See
    United States v. Mills, 
    613 F.3d 1070
    , 1077–78 (11th Cir. 2010). Griffin also
    asserts that the district court should have granted his Section 3582(c)(2) motion by
    affording him safety-valve relief under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (f). Our precedent also
    forecloses this suggestion. See United States v. Jackson, 
    613 F.3d 1305
    , 1308
    (11th Cir. 2010) (holding that “the safety-valve is inapplicable to sentence-
    modification proceedings” under Section 3582(c)(2)).
    For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-15632

Citation Numbers: 471 F. App'x 849

Judges: Black, Marcus, Martin, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 5/24/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023