United States v. Willie Frank Graham

Case: 15-10490 Date Filed: 12/01/2015 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-10490-BB
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:06-cr-14001-KMM-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIE FRANK GRAHAM,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(December 1, 2015)
Before WILSON, JORDAN and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-10490 Date Filed: 12/01/2015 Page: 2 of 3
Willie Frank Graham, a pro se federal prisoner who was sentenced as a
career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for sentence reduction. Graham seeks a reduction
under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court held that
Graham is ineligible for relief under Amendment 782 because he is a career
offender. On appeal, Graham argues that his career offender status does not bar
him from relief. Alternatively, he asserts the sentencing court erred in concluding
he is a career offender and, therefore, he is entitled to a sentence reduction. Both
of these arguments fail. Accordingly, we affirm.
First, Graham cannot obtain relief under Amendment 782 because his career
offender status forestalls the amendment from lowering his guideline range.
Section 3582(c)(2) only authorizes a sentence reduction if the relevant guideline
amendment has “the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline
range.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). Amendment 782 reduced the base offense
levels for most drug sentences calculated pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). See
U.S.S.G.App. C, amend. 782. But, as a career offender, Graham is subject to the
offense level and guideline range found in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. As a result, applying
Amendment 782 to Graham does not lower his guideline range. Under these
circumstances, the district court’s denial of Graham’s § 3582(c)(2) motion was
proper. See United States v. Glover, 686 F.3d 1203, 1206 (11th Cir. 2012) (“a
2
Case: 15-10490 Date Filed: 12/01/2015 Page: 3 of 3
court cannot use an amendment to reduce a sentence in a particular case unless that
amendment actually lowers the guidelines range in that case”).
Second, under the present procedural posture, Graham cannot challenge the
sentencing court’s determination that he is a career offender. Section 3582(c)(2)
only “permits a sentence reduction within the narrow bounds established by” the
guideline amendments at issue. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 831, 130 S.
Ct. 2683, 2694 (2010). “In making [a § 3582(c)(2)] determination, the court shall
substitute only the amendments . . . for the corresponding guideline provisions that
were applied when the defendant was sentenced and shall leave all other guideline
application decisions unaffected.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1) (emphasis added).
Amendment 782 does not affect U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a) or any related career offender
provisions. See U.S.S.G.App. C, amend. 782. Accordingly, the sentencing court’s
career offender decision is “outside the scope of the proceeding authorized by §
3582(c)(2).” See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 831, 130 S. Ct. at 2694.
AFFIRMED.
3