United States v. Jermaine Mathis , 620 F. App'x 886 ( 2015 )

Case: 15-10562 Date Filed: 10/16/2015 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-10562
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:99-cr-10035-KMM-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JERMAINE MATHIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(October 16, 2015)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
Case: 15-10562 Date Filed: 10/16/2015 Page: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Jermaine Mathis, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
determination that Mathis was ineligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2), and Amendment 782: he was sentenced as a career offender. No
reversible error has been shown; we affirm. *
We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions about the scope of
its authority under section 3582(c)(2). United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1217,
1319 (11th Cir. 2012). We construe liberally pro se pleadings. Tannenbaum v.
United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
A district court may not reduce a defendant’s term of imprisonment unless
(1) the defendant’s sentence was based upon a guideline range that the Sentencing
Commission later lowered and (2) a reduction is consistent with the Sentencing
Commission’s applicable policy statements. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). A reduction
is inconsistent with the guidelines’ policy statements if the guidelines amendment
does not lower the defendant’s “applicable guideline range.” U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). A defendant’s “applicable guideline range” is the guideline
range determined based on a defendant’s offense level and criminal history
*
Mathis also argues on appeal that the district court erred in classifying him as a career offender
under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. We lack jurisdiction to consider this argument in this section
3582(c)(2) appeal. See United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 782 (11th Cir. 2000) (in section
3582(c) proceedings, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider collateral attacks on a sentence).
2
Case: 15-10562 Date Filed: 10/16/2015 Page: 3 of 4
category before the application of departures or variances. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10,
comment. (n.1(A)).
The district court lacked the authority to reduce Mathis’s sentence, pursuant
to section 3582(c)(2), because Mathis’s applicable guideline range was not lowered
by Amendment 782. Although retroactive application of Amendment 782 would
reduce Mathis’s base offense level from 24 to 22, Mathis’s adjusted offense level
would still be 34 based on the operation of the career-offender guideline in section
4B1.1. Thus, Mathis’s applicable guideline range remains unchanged. The district
court committed no error in concluding that Mathis is ineligible for a sentence
reduction. See United States v. Hamilton, 715 F.3d 328, 337 (11th Cir. 2013)
(“Where a retroactively applicable guideline amendment reduces a defendant’s
base offense level, but does not alter the sentencing range upon which his or her
sentence was based, § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a reduction in sentence.”).
On appeal, Mathis argues, for the first time, that the commentary to section
1B1.10 (defining the term “applicable guideline range”) violates the Equal
Protection Clause and is inconsistent with section 1B1.10 and with the Sentencing
Commission’s statutory authority. Arguments raised for the first time on appeal
are reviewed only for plain error. See United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012,
1018-19 (11th Cir. 2005). Because Mathis has identified no controlling precedent
from the Supreme Court or from this Court establishing that the commentary
3
Case: 15-10562 Date Filed: 10/16/2015 Page: 4 of 4
violates the Constitution or a federal statute, or is otherwise inconsistent with the
guidelines, his argument fails: error, if any, is not plain. See Stinson v. United
States, 113 S.C. 1913, 1917-18 (1993); United States v. Ramirez-Flores, 743 F.3d
816, 822 (11th Cir. 2014).
AFFIRMED.
4