United States v. Micki Antonio Williams ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                                                          [DO NOT PUBLISH]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
    

Document Info

DocketNumber: 08-15079

Filed Date: 6/5/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2014