United States v. Charles Therion Clayton , 610 F. App'x 937 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •           Case: 15-10683   Date Filed: 07/22/2015   Page: 1 of 4
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 15-10683
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 0:09-cr-60304-KMM-1
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    CHARLES THERION CLAYTON,
    a.k.a. Charles Clayton,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Florida
    ________________________
    (July 22, 2015)
    Case: 15-10683    Date Filed: 07/22/2015   Page: 2 of 4
    Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JILL PRYOR, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Charles Therion Clayton is a federal prisoner who pleaded guilty to
    possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine. He now appeals
    pro se the denial of a motion for a sentence reduction, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
    3582(c)(2), based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district
    court denied the motion: Clayton’s career-offender status precluded a sentence
    reduction. No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.
    We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions about the scope of
    its authority in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. United States v. James, 
    548 F.3d 983
    , 984 (11th Cir. 2008).
    A district court may reduce a defendant’s term of imprisonment if the
    defendant was sentenced based on a sentencing range that was later lowered by the
    Sentencing Commission and “if such a reduction is consistent with applicable
    policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2);
    see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1). A reduction of a defendant’s term of
    imprisonment is unauthorized under section 3582(c)(2) when the retroactive
    2
    Case: 15-10683    Date Filed: 07/22/2015   Page: 3 of 4
    guideline amendment “does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s
    applicable guideline range.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B).
    The district court committed no error in denying Clayton a sentence
    reduction based on Amendment 782. Amendment 782 reduced -- by two -- the
    base offense levels for most drug sentences calculated pursuant to the Drug
    Quantity Table, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). U.S.S.G. App. C, amend. 782. But Clayton
    was sentenced using the offense level and guideline range for career offenders in
    U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, and not the offense level for drug quantity in U.S.S.G.
    § 2D1.1(c). Amendment 782 resulted in no lowering of Clayton’s guideline range;
    Clayton is ineligible for section 3582(c)(2) relief. See United States v. Lawson,
    
    686 F.3d 1317
    , 1321 (11th Cir. 2012).
    Clayton’s reliance on Freeman v. United States, 
    131 S. Ct. 2685
    (2011), is
    misplaced. In Freeman, the Supreme Court considered whether defendants who
    entered into plea agreements recommending a particular sentence, pursuant to
    Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1)(C), were eligible for a sentence reduction under section
    3582(c)(2). Here, Clayton’s plea agreement contained no agreed-upon sentence or
    guidelines range. Thus, Freeman is inapplicable.
    Because Clayton’s guideline range remained unchanged as a result of
    Amendment 782, no ex post facto violation occurred. See United States v. Colon,
    
    707 F.3d 1255
    , 1258-59 (11th Cir. 2013) (no ex post facto problem exists “[s]o
    3
    Case: 15-10683    Date Filed: 07/22/2015   Page: 4 of 4
    long as the effect of post-conduct amendments to the guidelines is not to increase a
    defendant’s punishment beyond what it would have been without those
    amendments.”). And the district court committed no error in treating U.S.S.G. §
    1B1.10 as binding. See Dillon v. United States, 
    130 S. Ct. 2683
    (2010).
    AFFIRMED.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-10683

Citation Numbers: 610 F. App'x 937

Filed Date: 7/22/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023