United States v. Uel Rincon Smith

Case: 15-10477 Date Filed: 11/09/2015 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-10477
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:13-cr-10008-KMM-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
UEL RINCON SMITH,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(November 9, 2015)
Before JULIE CARNES, FAY, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
Case: 15-10477 Date Filed: 11/09/2015 Page: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Uel Rincon Smith, through counsel, appeals the district court’s denial of his
pro se 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction, pursuant to
Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Smith was sentenced to 138
months’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to a cocaine-trafficking-conspiracy
offense. No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.
We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions about the scope of
its authority under section 3582(c)(2). United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317,
1319 (11th Cir. 2012).
A district court ordinarily may not modify a defendant’s term of
imprisonment once it has been imposed. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). A district court
may, however, reduce a defendant’s sentence if the term of imprisonment was
“based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the
Sentencing Commission.” Id. § 3582(c)(2); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1). We
have said that “the statutory provision, the Sentencing Commission’s
corresponding policy statement, and the commentary to that policy statement all
make it clear that a court cannot use an amendment to reduce a sentence in a
2
Case: 15-10477 Date Filed: 11/09/2015 Page: 3 of 4
particular case unless that amendment actually lowers the guidelines range in that
case.” United States v. Hamilton, 715 F.3d 328, 337 (11th Cir. 2013). The
defendant bears the burden of establishing that a retroactive amendment actually
lowers his guideline range. Id.The district court committed no error in denying Smith a sentence reduction
based on Amendment 782. Under the Guidelines in effect at the time of Smith’s
original sentencing, a drug quantity of 150 kilograms or more of cocaine resulted
in a base offense level of 38. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1) (2012). As a result of
Amendment 782, the Guidelines now provide that a drug quantity of 450 kilograms
or more of cocaine results in a base offense level of 38. See U.S.S.G. §
2D1.1(c)(1) (2014). At no point, however, has Smith disputed that he was
responsible for at least 1,100 kilograms of cocaine.
Applying retroactively Amendment 782 to Smith’s case, Smith’s base
offense level remains 38 because Smith was responsible for more than 450
kilograms of cocaine. See id. Retroactive application of Amendment 782 results
in no change to Smith’s guidelines sentencing range; no sentence reduction is
3
Case: 15-10477 Date Filed: 11/09/2015 Page: 4 of 4
authorized under section 3582(c)(2). See Hamilton, 715 F.3d at 337. *
AFFIRMED.
*
Because Smith is, as a matter of law, ineligible for a sentence reduction under section
3582(c)(2), the district court lacked discretion to modify his sentence. Thus, the district court
committed no error in failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors or Smith’s downward
departure for substantial assistance. Cf. United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780-81 (11th Cir.
2000) (after determining that a guidelines amendment lowers the defendant’s guidelines range, a
district court must then consider the section 3553(a) factors in determining -- in its discretion --
whether to impose a newly calculated sentence or to retain defendant’s original sentence).
4