United States v. Earl v. Hudgins , 352 F. App'x 382 ( 2009 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
NOVEMBER 10, 2009
No. 09-13300 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 03-00026-CR-3-RV
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EARL V. HUDGINS,
a.k.a. Chicken Earl,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(November 10, 2009)
Before BIRCH, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Earl Hudgins, through counsel, appeals the district court’s denial of his pro
se motion for a reduced sentence, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and
Amendment 706. On appeal, Hudgins argues that our decision in United States v.
Williams, 549 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2008), was incorrect because we held that
statutory minimums change guideline sentence ranges. According to Hudgins,
statutory minimums do not impact guideline ranges. Hudgins also argues that,
because he provided substantial assistance, his sentence should be reduced for
public policy reasons.
“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) (citations omitted). 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 subsequently has 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
Commission.” Id. The applicable policy statements, found in § 1B1.10, state that
a sentence reduction is not authorized under § 3582(c)(2) if “an amendment listed
in subsection (c) does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable
guideline range.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). The commentary elaborates that a
reduction is not authorized if an applicable amendment does not lower a
2
defendant’s applicable guideline range “because of the operation of another
guideline or statutory provision (e.g., a statutory mandatory minimum term of
imprisonment).” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(A)). Section 5G1.1 of the
Sentencing Guidelines provides, “Where 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).
Hudgins’s guideline range was life imprisonment under 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(b)(1)(A), pursuant to § 5G1.1(b). The district court properly denied
Hudgins’s motion for relief under § 3582(c)(2) because his guideline range, which
was based on the statutory minimum sentence of life imprisonment, was not
affected by Amendment 706. Hudgins correctly concedes that our holding in
Williams controls the outcome of the case. See Williams, 549 F.3d at 1342(holding that a defendant was not eligible for a sentence reduction under
Amendment 706 because he “was subject to a statutory mandatory minimum that
replaced his original guideline range”).
AFFIRMED.
3