United States v. Anthony Terry Jones

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 28, 2009
No. 08-15508 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 91-00172-CR-T-26-TGW
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANTHONY TERRY JONES,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(May 28, 2009)
Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Terry Jones appeals the district court’s determination he was
ineligible for a reduction of his sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
Jones requested relief based on Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines,
which reduced the base offense levels applicable to crack cocaine offenses. On
appeal, Jones argues the district court erred in finding he was ineligible for a
reduced sentence. Additionally, while he concedes he was sentenced as an armed
career criminal, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4, he contends the classification was
improper. He further argues the 60-month consecutive sentence he received for
violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (e) was illegal. Finally, he argues that, because
the guidelines are advisory under United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005),
his sentence was unreasonable, especially in light of the sentencing disparity
between crack and powder cocaine.
“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 reduce 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 applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing
2
Commission.” Id. The applicable policy statements, found in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10,
state a reduction of a term of imprisonment is not authorized if the retroactive
amendment does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable
guideline range. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B).
Jones’s arguments are foreclosed by precedent. The district court did not
have authority to reexamine Jones’s status as an armed career criminal or the
constitutionality of his firearm conviction. See United States v. Moreno, 421 F.3d
1217, 1220 (11th Cir. 2005) (noting that, except for the amended guideline range,
all of the court’s original sentencing determinations remain unchanged in a
§ 3582(c)(2) proceeding). Furthermore, we recently held a defendant sentenced as
an armed career criminal, pursuant to § 4B1.4, is not entitled to § 3582 relief. See
United States v. Thomas, 545 F.3d 1300, 1302 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding the base
offense levels under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 played no role in the calculation of the
guideline ranges for armed career criminals, and, therefore, a reduction in the
guideline range under § 2D1.1 does not affect the guideline range under § 4B1.4).
Finally, Booker does not entitle Jones to relief. See United States v. Jones, 548
F.3d 1366, 1369 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding Booker did not provide the district court
with an independent jurisdictional basis to reduce a sentence pursuant to
3
§ 3582(c)(2)), cert. denied, (U.S. Mar. 23, 2009) (No. 08-8865). Accordingly, we
affirm.
AFFIRMED.
4