United States v. Karriece Quontrell Davis

Case: 13-14498 Date Filed: 07/10/2014 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-14498
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:08-cr-00005-RS-GRJ-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KARRIECE QUONTRELL DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(July 10, 2014)
Before WILSON, JORDAN and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-14498 Date Filed: 07/10/2014 Page: 2 of 3
Karriece Davis appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to
modify his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Davis argues the district court
erred at sentencing when it adopted facts from the Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) and
found him responsible for 1500 grams of powder cocaine. He contends that he
should only have been held responsible for 9.9 grams of cocaine and that, because
of Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines, he is entitled to a modified
sentence. After review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm.
We review a district court’s decision to deny a sentence reduction for abuse
of discretion. United States v. Jones, 548 F.3d 1366, 1368 n.1 (11th Cir. 2008)
(per curiam). Where an amendment to the Guidelines has no impact on a
defendant’s Guidelines range, the court may not grant a motion to reduce a
sentence. See United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1327–28 (11th Cir. 2008).
Rather than alleging that the district court erred when considering his
§ 3582(c)(2) motion, Davis attacks the factual findings made by the district court at
his sentencing hearing. But because Davis failed to challenge those findings on
direct review, United States v. Davis, 370 F. App’x 974, 979 (11th Cir. 2010) (per
curiam) (“Davis does not dispute that . . . these drug deals . . . involved 1500 grams
of cocaine powder.”), they are considered law-of-the-case and thus, binding in
subsequent stages of litigation. See United States v. Escobar-Urrego, 110 F.3d
1556, 1560 (11th Cir. 1997) (“[A] legal decision made at one stage of the
2
Case: 13-14498 Date Filed: 07/10/2014 Page: 3 of 3
litigation, unchallenged in a subsequent appeal when the opportunity existed,
becomes the law of the case for future stages of the same litigation, and the parties
are deemed to have waived the right to challenge that decision at a later time.”
(internal quotation marks omitted)). In light of the fact that Davis was held
accountable for 1500 grams of cocaine, Amendment 750 does not have any impact
on his guidelines range. Accordingly, the court correctly denied his motion.
AFFIRMED.
3