United States v. Ronald Ford , 316 F. App'x 900 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                                                             [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FILED
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    FEB 27, 2009
    No. 08-12666                  THOMAS K. KAHN
    Non-Argument Calendar                 CLERK
    ________________________
    D. C. Docket No. 94-06003-CR-DTKH
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    RONALD FORD,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Florida
    _________________________
    (February 27, 2009)
    Before DUBINA, BLACK and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant Ronald Ford, a federal prisoner convicted of a crack cocaine
    offense, through counsel, appeals the district court’s grant of his pro se motion for
    a reduced sentence, pursuant to 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(2). Ford’s motion was based
    on Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which lowered the base offense
    levels associated with crack cocaine offenses. Ford’s motion also included an
    argument that the district court could impose a sentence below the amended
    guideline range after United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
    , 
    125 S. Ct. 738
    , 
    160 L. Ed. 2d 621
     (2005). The district court granted the motion in part, recalculated the
    guideline range, and imposed a sentence at the low end of the amended guideline
    range. On appeal, Ford argues that both Booker and Kimbrough v. United States,
    552 U.S. __, 
    128 S. Ct. 558
    , 
    169 L. Ed. 2d 481
     (2007), apply to § 3582(c)(2)
    proceedings, and that the district court should further reduce his sentence after
    considering his post-conviction efforts, strong family ties, and the crack/powder
    disparity.
    In the 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(2) context, “we review de novo the district
    court’s legal conclusions regarding the scope of its authority under the Sentencing
    Guidelines.” United States v. White, 
    305 F.3d 1264
    , 1267 (11th Cir. 2002).
    Under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(2):
    in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of
    imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been
    lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o),
    upon motion of the defendant or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons,
    2
    or on its own motion, the court may reduce the term of imprisonment,
    after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent
    that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with
    applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.
    
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (c)(2) (emphasis added).
    The policy statement applicable to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings is U.S.S.G. §
    1B1.10, which instructs courts how to determine the amended guideline range.
    U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1) (2008). The policy statement provides in relevant part
    that “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 determined under [§ 1B1.10(b)(1)].”
    U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A).
    In United States v. Melvin, ___ F.3d ___, No. 08-13497 (11th Cir. February
    3, 2009), we held that § 3582(c)(2) only allows a district court to reduce sentences
    in a manner “consistent with the applicable policy statements of the Sentencing
    Commission.” Id. at ___. We noted that the policy statement applicable to
    3582(c)(2) proceedings prohibited the district court from reducing a term of
    imprisonment below the end of the amended guideline range. Id. at ___; see also
    U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A). We further held that the district court could not rely
    on Booker or Kimbrough to reduce the defendant’s sentence below the low end of
    the amended guideline range. Melvin, ___, F.3d at ___.
    3
    In the § 3582(c)(2) proceeding, the district court was not permitted to reduce
    Ford’s sentence below his amended guideline range. Accordingly, we conclude
    that the district court did not err, and we affirm Ford’s sentence.
    AFFIRMED.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-12666

Citation Numbers: 316 F. App'x 900

Filed Date: 2/27/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023