United States v. Lawrence Holman

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-16151 APRIL 22, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 98-00166-CR-J-25TEM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LAWRENCE HOLMAN,
a.k.a. Trick Daddy,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(April 22, 2009)
Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Lawrence Holman appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion
for a sentence reduction. That motion was based on Amendment 706 to the
Sentencing Guidelines, which reduced base offense levels applicable to crack
cocaine. Holman contends that the district court erred by applying as mandatory
an application note prohibiting a reduction where the defendant was sentenced
pursuant to the revocation of his supervised release.
“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. James, 548 F.3d
983, 984 (11th Cir. 2008). A district court may modify a term of imprisonment in
the case of a defendant who was sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a
sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Any reduction, however, must be
“consistent with the applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing
Commission.” Id.The commentary to the applicable policy statements, found in U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10, instructs as follows: “Only a term of imprisonment imposed as part of
the original sentence is authorized to be reduced under this section. This section
does not authorize a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed upon
revocation of supervised release.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, cmt. 4(A) (Nov. 2008).
This commentary is binding, so long as it does not violate the Constitution or a
2
federal statute, and is not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the guidelines.
Cook v. Wiley, 208 F.3d 1314, 1322 n.12 (11th Cir. 2000). It is none of those
things.
We recently held that United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738(2005), does not apply to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings, and the district court is bound
by the limitations imposed by U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. See United States v. Melvin,
556 F.3d 1190, 1192 (11th Cir. 2009) (holding that Booker does not “prohibit the
limitations on a judge’s discretion in reducing a sentence imposed by § 3582(c)(2)
and the applicable policy statement by the Sentencing Commission”).
Accordingly, the district court does not have the authority to reduce a sentence
imposed upon revocation of supervised release.
AFFIRMED.
3