United States v. Jevon Scott , 467 F. App'x 874 ( 2012 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 12-10577 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar JUNE 22, 2012
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 8:05-cr-00061-RAL-EAJ-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JEVON SCOTT,
a.k.a. Iceman,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(June 22, 2012)
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jevon Scott appeals the denial of his motion for a sentence reduction,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), which sought to modify his 180-month
sentence for conspiring to possess cocaine base with intent to distribute based on
Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines. He argues that, because the
Guidelines are merely advisory, the district court should have reduced his sentence
pursuant to Amendment 750, even though he was sentenced as a career offender
under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.
We review de novo a district court’s conclusions about the scope of its legal
authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323,
1326 (11th Cir. 2008). Amendment 750, which has been made retroactive, revised
the Drug Quantity Table in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c), and reduced the base offense
levels associated with various amounts of crack cocaine. U.S.S.G. App. C,
amends. 750, 759. Nevertheless, a sentence reduction is not authorized under
§ 3582(c)(2) if the relevant amendment does not have the effect of lowering the
defendant’s applicable guideline range due to the operation of another guideline.
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1). Thus, a
retroactive amendment to § 2D1.1 does not alter the guideline range of a defendant
sentenced as a career offender under § 4B1.1. See Moore, 541 F.3d at 1330.
Furthermore, § 3582(c)(2) and the applicable guideline policy statements in
§ 1B1.10 still bind a district court’s discretion, regardless of the advisory nature of
2
the Guidelines. See United States v. Melvin, 556 F.3d 1190, 1192-93 (11th Cir.
2009).
Here, the District Court did not err when it denied the § 3582(c)(2) motion
requesting relief under Amendment 750 because Scott was originally sentenced as
a career offender under § 4B1.1, not under § 2D1.1. Thus, Amendment 750 has no
effect on Scott’s applicable guideline range, and he is ineligible for § 3582(c)(2)
relief on that basis. Furthermore, contrary to Scott’s argument, the District Court
was bound by § 3582(c)(2) and the applicable policy statements contained in
§ 1B1.10, regardless of the advisory nature of the Guidelines.
Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we
affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3