United States v. Micki Antonio Williams , 332 F. App'x 570 ( 2009 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 5, 2009
No. 08-15079 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 94-00079-CR-002-CAR-5
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICKI ANTONIO WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
_________________________
(June 5, 2009)
Before BLACK, CARNES and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Micki Antonio Williams, proceeding pro se, appeals the sentence imposed
by the district court following the grant of his motion for a reduced sentence,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Williams’ § 3582(c)(2) motion was based on
Amendment 599 to the Sentencing Guidelines; Amendment 599 provided that,
when a defendant is being sentenced for both a 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) violation of use
and carrying a firearm and for the offense underlying the § 924(c) violation, the
court is precluded from applying the weapons enhancement for the underlying
offense. On appeal, Williams argues the district court erred in its application of
§ 3582(c)(2) when it refused to sentence him below the minimum of the amended
guideline range. Williams asserts, despite the language of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10,
which constrains the court’s authority to vary from the amended range, that
section, like all of the guidelines, is merely advisory under United States v. Booker,
125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Williams also argues the district court erred because it
should have reduced his offense level of 43 to 24, not 39, because the total number
of adjustments he received in the original guidelines calculations based on the
firearms enhancement was 19.
“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). Similarly, we review the district court’s interpretation of
2
Amendment 599 de novo. United States v. Pringle, 350 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (11th
Cir. 2003). 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 has subsequently 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 “the 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 guideline range.”
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A).
Williams’ arguments are foreclosed by precedent. See United States v.
Melvin, 556 F.3d 1190, 1192-93 (11th Cir. 2009) (holding Booker does not
“prohibit the limitations on a judge’s discretion in reducing a sentence imposed by
§ 3582(c)(2) and the applicable policy statement by the Sentencing Commission”),
petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Feb. 10, 2009) (No. 08-8664). Moreover, the district
court removed the weapons enhancement, as required by Amendment 599.
Williams contention he should have received a 19-level reduction is without merit.
Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3