United States v. Willie James Griffin, Jr. , 520 F. App'x 858 ( 2013 )

Case: 12-13144 Date Filed: 05/30/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-13144
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:99-cr-00046-RV-EMT-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIE JAMES GRIFFIN, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(May 30, 2013)
Before MARCUS, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Willie Griffin appeals pro se the denial of his motion for a further reduction
of his sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court ruled that Griffin was
Case: 12-13144 Date Filed: 05/30/2013 Page: 2 of 3
not entitled to a further reduction under Amendment 750 after having already
received a reduction of his sentence to the statutory minimum penalty of 240
months of imprisonment under Amendment 706. We affirm.
Griffin challenges the denial of his motion for a further reduction of his
sentence on two grounds. First, Griffin argues that the district court that failed to
address his arguments about drug quantity and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.
466, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000), but a district court may not revisit any “original
sentencing determinations.” United States Sentencing Guidelines § 1B1.10(b)(1);
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2694 (2010). The district
court found that Griffin was responsible for 4.065 kilograms of cocaine base after
Griffin withdrew his objection to that fact in his presentence investigation report.
See United States v. Davis, 587 F.3d 1300, 1302–04 (11th Cir. 2009). Griffin was
ineligible for a further reduction of his sentence because was sentenced to a
statutory minimum term of imprisonment. See United States v. Mills, 613 F.3d
1070, 1074–79 (11th Cir. 2010). Second, Griffin argues that he was entitled to a
further reduction under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, but the Act “is not a
guidelines amendment by the Sentencing Commission . . . [that can] serve as a
basis for a . . . sentence reduction,” and does not apply to Griffin because he was
sentenced before it became effective on August 3, 2010. United States v. Berry,
701 F.3d 374, 376–78 (11th Cir. 2012).
2
Case: 12-13144 Date Filed: 05/30/2013 Page: 3 of 3
We AFFIRM the denial of Griffin’s motion for a further reduction of his
sentence.
3