Document Info

DocketNumber: 12-12303, 12-13346, 12-14122

Citation Numbers: 524 F. App'x 570

Judges: Marcus, Martin, Kravitch

Filed Date: 7/31/2013

Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024

  •           Case: 12-12303   Date Filed: 07/31/2013   Page: 1 of 5
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 12-12303
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 6:08-cr-00265-MSS-KRS-1
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    NATHANIAH FREDERICKS,
    a.k.a. Niah,
    a.k.a. Smooth,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    ________________________
    No. 12-13346
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 6:11-cr-00326-CEH-KRS-1
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    Case: 12-12303   Date Filed: 07/31/2013   Page: 2 of 5
    ELTON JONES,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    ________________________
    No. 12-14122
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 3:05-cr-00133-TJC-MCR-1
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ANTONIO MONTRESE MARLOW,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeals from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Florida
    ________________________
    (July 31, 2013)
    Before MARCUS, MARTIN and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    2
    Case: 12-12303       Date Filed: 07/31/2013       Page: 3 of 5
    In this consolidated appeal, Nathaniah Fredericks, Antonio Marlow, and
    Elton Jones (the defendants) appeal the district court’s denials of their respective
    motions to reduce their sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court
    found that the defendants were each ineligible for relief pursuant to Amendment
    750 because they were each sentenced as a career offender. On appeal, the
    defendants, each of whom received sentences below the career offender guideline
    range, argue that after the Supreme Court’s decision in Freeman v. United States,
    ___ U.S. ___, 
    131 S. Ct. 2685
    (2011) (plurality opinion), a career offender
    sentenced below the career offender guideline range is eligible for a sentence
    reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 750. The
    government counters that the defendants are ineligible for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence
    reduction because, as career offenders, their guideline ranges would have been the
    same if the amended guideline had been in effect at the time of their sentencing.
    After careful consideration, 1 we reject the defendants’ argument and affirm the
    district court’s denial of their § 3582(c)(2) motions.
    I.
    In United States v. Moore, we held that § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a
    sentence reduction when a retroactively applicable guideline range amendment
    1
    “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. Lawson, 
    686 F.3d 1317
    , 1319 (11th Cir. 2012), cert.
    denied, 
    133 S. Ct. 568
    (2012).
    3
    Case: 12-12303     Date Filed: 07/31/2013   Page: 4 of 5
    does not change the guideline range upon which a defendant’s sentence was based.
    
    541 F.3d 1323
    , 1330 (11th Cir. 2008). Thus, even when an amendment reduces
    the base offense level applicable to a defendant, the amendment does not apply to a
    defendant sentenced as a career offender because it does not affect the defendant’s
    guideline range. 
    Id. After our decision
    in Moore, a plurality of the Supreme Court in Freeman v.
    United States decided that defendants who entered into a Federal Rule of Criminal
    Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement are eligible to seek § 3582(c)(2) relief when
    the sentence contained in a plea agreement was based on a guideline range that was
    later subject to a retroactive 
    amendment. 131 S. Ct. at 2690
    (plurality opinion).
    We have explained that Freeman did not disturb our holding in Moore because the
    Supreme Court’s decision in Freeman did not address “defendants [who] were
    assigned a base offense level under one guideline section, but then assigned a total
    offense level and guideline range under a different guideline section.” 
    Lawson, 686 F.3d at 1321
    . Because Moore “remains binding precedent,” 
    id., we are compelled
    to reject the defendants’ argument that Freeman should be read to
    undermine Moore.
    We are also compelled to reject the defendants’ argument that Moore does
    not apply to them because they each received sentences below the career offender
    guideline range. Because the defendants are career offenders, their guideline range
    4
    Case: 12-12303     Date Filed: 07/31/2013   Page: 5 of 5
    was based on § 4B1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. See 
    id. at 1319. That
    they each received a sentence reduction based on substantial assistance to law
    enforcement does not alter the fact that their guideline ranges were based on
    § 4B1.1. In fact, one of the defendants in Moore also received a sentence
    reduction based on substantial assistance, and we found that he was ineligible for
    § 3582(c)(2) relief because there was no “indication that the court based [his]
    sentence on the guideline range that would have applied absent the career offender
    designation” or that the reduction in his sentence lowered his sentencing range.
    
    Moore, 541 F.3d at 1330
    . Here, because the defendants’ guideline ranges were
    based on § 4B1.1, § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a reduction in their sentences.
    See 
    Lawson, 686 F.3d at 1321
    .
    For these reasons, the decisions of the district court are AFFIRMED.
    5