United States v. Darius Workman , 327 F. App'x 842 ( 2009 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-11724 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 13, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 98-00034-CR-9-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DARIUS WORKMAN,
a.k.a. Ray,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
_________________________
(May 13, 2009)
Before CARNES, WILSON and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Darius Workman, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s
sua sponte denial of a sentencing reduction, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
I.
In 1999, Workman pled guilty to one count of distributing crack cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The probation officer determined that
Workman had a base offense level of 28 under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 because he was
responsible for at least 20, but less than 35, grams of crack cocaine. However,
because Workman had two prior felony convictions for drug distribution, the
probation officer found that he was a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.
Workman’s status as a career offender gave him a new offense level of 34, which
was reduced to 31 after the probation officer applied a 3-level reduction for
acceptance of responsibility. Workman had a criminal history category of VI
which, when coupled with an offense level of 31, produced an applicable guideline
range of 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment. The district court ultimately sentenced
Workman to 188 months’ imprisonment, and we affirmed Workman’s conviction
and sentence on appeal.
On March 12, 2008, the district court, acting sua sponte, entered an order
denying Workman a sentencing reduction. After re-calculating Workman’s
2
guideline range in light of Amendment 706, the court explained that Workman was
ineligible for a sentencing reduction because “[t]here is no change in [his] advisory
guideline range since he is a career offender and his offense level is determined
based on th[e] Chapter Four enhancement.” This appeal followed.
II.
“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). Under § 3582(c)(2), a district court may modify a
defendant’s term of imprisonment where he “has been 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 such reduction
must also be consistent with the Commission’s applicable policy statements, which
similarly provide, inter alia, that a sentencing reduction is not permitted where 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).
III.
In this case, the district court correctly found that Workman was ineligible
for a sentencing reduction because, although Amendment 706 would reduce
Workman’s base offense level from § 2D1.1, it would not affect his guideline
3
range, as his underlying base offense level was superseded when he was sentenced
as a career offender. See United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir.
2008) (“Where a retroactively applicable guideline amendment reduces a
defendant’s base offense level, but does not alter the sentencing range upon which
his or her sentence was based, § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a reduction in
sentence.”), cert. denied, McFadden v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 965 (2009), and
cert. denied (U.S. Mar. 9, 2009) (No. 08-8554). Workman’s remaining arguments
are wholly without merit. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
4