United States v. Jordan Roberts , 319 F. App'x 885 ( 2009 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-13753 MARCH 19, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 95-00184-CR-CB
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JORDAN ROBERTS,
a.k.a. Lavonne Lewis,
a.k.a. Nathan Lavonne Mazyck,
a.k.a. Ot,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
_________________________
(March 19, 2009)
Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jordan Roberts, a federal prisoner convicted of a crack cocaine offense,
appeals the district court’s reduction of his sentence under Amendment 706 and 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Roberts contends that the district erred when it refused to
apply United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005), and
Kimbrough v. United States, __ U.S. __, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007), at his resentencing.
In 1996 Roberts was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to
distribute under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)(A). The district court determined that his
offense level was 41 and his criminal history category was III, giving Roberts a
sentencing guidelines range of 360 months to life imprisonment. He was
sentenced to 360 months. After Amendment 706 became retroactive in 2008,
Roberts’ offense level dropped to 39 and his guidelines range became 324 to 405
months. Acting under § 3582(c)(2), the district court resentenced Roberts to 324
months, the bottom of his amended guidelines range.
Roberts, seeking a further reduction in his sentence, argues that the district
court erred in failing to apply Booker and Kimbrough at his § 3582(c)
resentencing. Recently we held that Booker and Kimbrough do not apply at
resentencing proceedings under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Melvin, __ F.3d __,
2009 WL 236053, at *1, No. 08-13497 (11th Cir. Feb. 3, 2009); see also United
States v. Starks, 551 F.3d 839 (8th Cir. 2009) ; U
. nited States v. Rhodes, 549 F.3d
2
833 (10th Cir. 2008); United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247 (4th Cir. 2009).
Because the district court sentenced Roberts to the bottom of his amended
guidelines range, under Melvin and the applicable policy statement of the
Sentencing Commission, it had no discretion to reduce his sentence any further.
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) (“[T]he court shall not reduce the defendant's term of
imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that
is less than the minimum of the amended guidelines range. . .”); Melvin, 2009 WL
236053, at *5. There was no error at the resentencing.
AFFIRMED.
3