United States v. Shawn Campbell , 304 F. App'x 822 ( 2008 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-14161 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
DECEMBER 23, 2008
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 04-00162-CR-4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SHAWN CAMPBELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
_________________________
(December 23, 2008)
Before BLACK, BARKETT and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Shawn Campbell, a federal prisoner convicted of possession with the intent
to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), appeals the district court’s denial of his pro se 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
motion for reduction of sentence, based on Amendment 706 to the Sentencing
Guidelines. On appeal, Campbell argues that he qualified for a two-level sentence
reduction, despite the fact that he originally was sentenced to the mandatory
minimum. Campbell further argues that the district court did not conduct a proper
analysis of the pertinent factors, including his post-sentencing conduct, before
denying his motion.
We review the district court’s decision to deny reduction of a defendant’s
sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion. United States v. Moreno,
421 F.3d 1217, 1219 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). Under § 3582(c)(2), a district
court may not reduce the term of imprisonment of an already incarcerated
defendant unless that defendant has been sentenced pursuant to a guideline range
“that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. . . .” 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Amendment 706 provides for a two-level reduction in the
base offense level for certain crack cocaine offenses. See U.S. S ENTENCING
G UIDELINES M ANUAL app. C, amend. 706. This amendment was effective
retroactively as of March 3, 2008. U.S. S ENTENCING G UIDELINES M ANUAL app. C,
amend. 713.
2
In addressing a § 3582(c)(2) motion, a district court must engage in a two-
part analysis: (1) recalculating the sentence based on the amendment, leaving “[a]ll
other guideline application decisions . . . unaffected;” and (2) exercising its
discretion, based on the 28 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors, to impose a new sentence or to
retain the original. U.S. S ENTENCING G UIDELINES M ANUAL § 1B1.10 cmt. n.2; see
United States v. Vautier, 144 F.3d 756, 760 (11th Cir. 1998). This requirement,
however, “is triggered only by an amendment . . . that lowers the applicable
guideline range.” U.S. S ENTENCING G UIDELINES M ANUAL § 1B1.10, cmt. n.1.
For example, “a reduction under § 3582(c)(2) is not authorized where the
amendment . . . is applicable to the defendant but the amendment does not have the
effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range because of the
operation of another guideline or statutory provision (e.g. a statutory mandatory
minimum term of imprisonment).” United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1327-
28 (11th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis
omitted)). This is true because, to the extent the mandatory minimum is greater
than a portion of the guideline range, the mandatory minimum replaces its lower
boundary, and where the mandatory minimum “is greater than the maximum of the
guideline range,” it becomes the guideline sentence. United States v. Pope, 58
F.3d 1567, 1569 (11th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). See also U.S. S ENTENCING
3
G UIDELINES M ANUAL § 5G1.1(b), (c)(2).
We conclude that Campbell was not eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence
reduction. Campbell was originally sentenced to 120 months, which was and
remains the mandatory minimum. While Amendment 706 reduced Campbell’s
base offense level, it did not lower his applicable guideline range because his
sentence was controlled by the mandatory minimum. Accordingly, the district
court lacked authority to grant relief to Campbell under § 3582(c)(2), and it was
not required to consider the § 3553(a) factors.
CONCLUSION
We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, we
affirm Campbell’s 120 month sentence.
AFFIRMED.
4