United States v. Markeith Loyd

Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 1 of 23
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-16079
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:98-cr-00206-GKS-KRS-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARKEITH LOYD,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 12-10470
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:99-cr-00377-SCB-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 2 of 23
versus
DERRICK BRADSHAW INGRAM,
a.k.a. Chico,
a.k.a. Delji Tyson,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 12-10471
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:06-cr-00075-SCB-TBM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JEREMIAH NATHAN WATERS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 12-10476
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cr-00558-SCB-TGW-1
2
Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 3 of 23
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RYAN LAWRENCE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 12-10501
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cr-00198-SCB-TGW-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LEEOTIS WILSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 12-10547
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:05-cr-00157-RAL-MAP-1
3
Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 4 of 23
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL C. DEASE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 12-10570
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cr-00304-SCB-MAP-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GREGORY ANTHONY GOMES,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 12-10690
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:06-cr-00187-GAP-GJK-2
4
Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 5 of 23
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EDDIE JERALD BROOKS,
a.k.a. Rod,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 12-10691
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:08-cr-00198-GAP-GJK-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANTWAIN DEVON MITCHELL,
a.k.a. Baby Jesus,
a.k.a. Water,
Defendant-Appellant.
5
Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 6 of 23
________________________
No. 12-10692
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:07-cr-00213-GAP-KRS-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TODD EDGAR WARTHEN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 12-10726
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:11-cr-00344-GAP-DAB-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RODERICK FINNMARK HADLEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
6
Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 7 of 23
________________________
No. 12-10804
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:08-cr-00269-GKS-KRS-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
NATHANIEL BARNETT, JR.,
a.k.a. "G",
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 12-10918
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:08-cr-00213-GKS-DAB-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RAYNANDO GARCIA,
7
Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 8 of 23
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 12-10946
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cr-00448-VMC-TGW-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
VINCENT EDWARD UNDERWOOD,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 12-10950
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cr-00399-SCB-AEP-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
8
Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 9 of 23
DARRYL WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 12-10951
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cr-00088-SCB-EAJ-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JIMMIE LEE FORD, JR.,
a.k.a. Hood,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 12-10952
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:08-cr-00195-SCB-MAP-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
9
Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 10 of 23
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FRANKIE SEGARRA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 12-10985
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:93-cr-00228-SCB-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
OMAR ANTONIO ANCHICO-MOSQUERA,
a.k.a. Willie Willie,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 12-11053
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:04-cr-00165-SCB-MSS-1
10
Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 11 of 23
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DARIN UNDERWOOD,
a.k.a. Buck,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 12-11576
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:07-cr-00365-SDM-TBM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TABBIEAN BELLAMY,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 12-11765
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:01-cr-00253-SCB-1
11
Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 12 of 23
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL LEIGH,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 12-12365
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:08-cr-00263-JA-GJK-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DAVID JEROME HOLLIMON,
agent of Bubba,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 12-12472
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
12
Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 13 of 23
D.C. Docket No. 8:93-cr-00003-SCB-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GUILLERMO IBARRA-MARTINEZ,
a.k.a. William Hidalgo,
a.k.a. Wilson Herrera,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 12-12494
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:08-cr-00199-JA-DAB-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TRACY PEREZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
13
Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 14 of 23
________________________
No. 12-12498
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:04-cr-00352-SCB-MSS-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WANDA BARTON,
a.k.a. Tiny,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 12-12553
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:08-cr-00124-JES-DNF-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALVIN FREEMAN,
14
Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 15 of 23
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 12-12647
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:95-cr-00307-SCB-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHARLES SPIGNER, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 12-12648
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:07-cr-00061-JES-DNF-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
15
Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 16 of 23
versus
WILLIAM BRUCE REGAN,
a.k.a. Big Man,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 12-12652
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:06-cr-00127-JES-DNF-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JATHANIEL BROOKS,
a.k.a. Reggie Brooks,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 12-12704
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cr-00014-EAK-TBM-1
16
Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 17 of 23
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DARRELL C. LONDON,
a.k.a. D,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 12-13141
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:04-cr-00265-SCB-MAP-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROSANNE ERON SIMPSON,
a.k.a. Kevin Smith,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 12-13222
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
17
Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 18 of 23
D.C. Docket No. 6:11-cr-00325-CEH-GJK-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANTWAN KNEEOR BROWNLEE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 12-13318
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:08-cr-00271-MSS-DAB-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LATAVIOUS HAZLEY,
a.k.a. Tay,
a.k.a. Big Mush,
Defendant-Appellant.
18
Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 19 of 23
________________________
No. 12-13446
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:05-cr-00071-VMC-DNF-14
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JONATHAN E. FOSTER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 12-13621
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:08-cr-00342-VMC-EAJ-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GREGORY ROBINSON,
19
Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 20 of 23
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(June 28, 2013)
Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, thirty-five defendants, each convicted (via a
guilty plea or after trial) and sentenced for one or more crack-cocaine offenses, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), prior to August 3, 2010—the effective date of the
Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (“FSA”), Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372—
appeal the partial grants or denials of their 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motions to
reduce sentence based on Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines. In
twenty-nine of the cases, the District Court denied the § 3582(c)(2) motion in full,
on the ground that the defendant previously had received the minimum sentence
mandated by statute. In six of the cases, the District Court granted the defendant’s
motion in part and reduced his sentence to the mandatory minimum prison term.
In all thirty-five cases, the court denied further relief on the ground that it lacked
the authority to reduce the defendant’s sentence(s) below the mandatory minimum.
20
Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 21 of 23
On appeal, each defendant advances these arguments: (1) because the FSA
“generated” Amendment 750, the FSA must be applied “in conjunction with”
Amendment 750 in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. Therefore, because the FSA
lowered the mandatory minimum prison term prescribed for defendant’s
conviction(s), the court was authorized to further reduce his sentence(s) and (2)
the Sentencing Commission’s 2011 definition of “applicable guideline range”—in
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 comment. (n.1(A))—renders defendant eligible for a sentence
reduction “in light of the FSA’s statutory and guideline changes,” which operate to
lower his “applicable guideline ranges.” We considered and rejected these
arguments in United States v. Hippolyte, 712 F.3d 535 (11th Cir. 2013), which was
decided after the appeals in these cases were briefed and controls our decision
here.
As in these cases,
Hippolyte’s position [was] that both Amendment 750 and the FSA
apply in [a] § 3582(c) proceeding. He advance[d] the . . . argument
that one of the changes made by Amendment 759 to the Sentencing
Guidelines . . . was to add a brand-new definition of “applicable
guideline range” to U.S.S.G. 1B1.10, and that the new definition
significantly change[d] the way sentencing reductions work under §
3582(c).
Id., at 538. He noted that prior to Amendment 759,
this court had defined the ‘applicable guideline range’ as ‘the scope of
sentences available to the district court, which could be limited by a
21
Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 22 of 23
statutorily imposed mandatory minimum ‘guideline sentence’ . . . but
that definition [was] obsolete because the Sentencing Commission . .
., in Amendment 759, defined ‘applicable guideline range’ to include
only the offense level and criminal history category, and to exclude
any statutory mandatory minimums.
Id. at 538-39 (citation omitted).
we [we]re unpersuaded that Hippolyte's interpretation of Amendment
759's new definition of applicable guideline range is correct.
Amendment 759 defines the applicable guideline range as ‘the
guideline range that corresponds to the offense level and criminal
history category determined pursuant to § 1B1.1(a), which is
determined before consideration of any departure provision in the
Guidelines Manual or any variance.’ U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n. 1(A)
(2011). Section 1B1.1(a) prescribes an eight-step procedure for
determining the applicable guideline range. Steps one through five
determine the defendant's offense level. Step six determines the
defendant's criminal history category. Step seven directs use of the
Sentencing Table to find the guideline range by cross-referencing the
previously-determined offense level and criminal history category.
Step eight directs use of Chapter Five Parts B through G to determine
various sentencing requirements and options. Section 5G1.1(b)
provides that “[w]here a statutorily required minimum sentence is
greater than the maximum of the applicable guideline range, the
statutorily required minimum sentence shall be the guideline
sentence.” U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(b). Thus, when one uses § 1B1.1(a) to
determine the applicable guideline range, one necessarily is required
to take into account the mandatory minimum sentences that may be
statutorily required.
Id. at 540-541 (emphasis in original). We held that the District Court committed
no error in denying Hippolyte’s § 3582(c) for reduction of sentence.
Section 3582(c) requires that any sentence reduction be ‘consistent
with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing
Commission.’ The Sentencing Guidelines explain that a reduction in
22
Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 23 of 23
the defendant's term of imprisonment is not authorized under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and is not consistent with th[e] policy statement if
. . .an amendment . . .is applicable to a defendant but the amendment
does not have the effect of lowering the defendant's applicable
guideline range because of the operation of another guideline or
statutory provision ( e.g., a statutory mandatory minimum term of
imprisonment). United States v. Glover, 686 F.3d 1203, 1206 (11th
Cir.2012) (emphasis in original) (quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.
1(A)). Amendment 750 has no effect on Hippolyte's sentence because
it did not alter the statutory mandatory minimum sentence Hippolyte
received.
Id. at 541-42 (emphasis in original).
After addressing and rejecting Hippolyte’s argument—the argument
defendants advance here—we stated that “[w]e agree[d] with every other circuit to
address the issue that there is ‘no evidence that Congress intended [the FSA] to
apply to defendants who had been sentenced prior to the August 3, 2010 date of the
Act’s enactment.’” Id. at 542.
For the foregoing reasons, the denial of § 3582(c) relief in these cases is
AFFIRMED.
23