Case: 12-10518 Date Filed: 08/06/2013 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-10518
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:94-cr-00004-WS-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GAYOT DORVAL,
a.k.a Bobby,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
________________________
(August 6, 2013)
Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Gayot Dorval appeals pro se the denial of his motion for a further reduction
of his sentence based on Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines. 18 U.S.C.
Case: 12-10518 Date Filed: 08/06/2013 Page: 2 of 2
§ 3582(c). In 2004, the district court reduced Dorval’s sentence to 360 months of
imprisonment based on Amendment 505. The United States moves for a summary
affirmance and to stay the briefing schedule. Because the “position [of the United
States] . . . is clearly right as a matter of law so that there [is] no substantial
question as to the outcome of the case,” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406
F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), we grant the motion for summary affirmance and
dismiss as moot the motion to stay the briefing schedule.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Dorval’s motion
because Amendment 750 did not alter Dorval’s sentencing range. Because Dorval
was, without objection, held responsible for more than 8.4 kilograms of crack
cocaine, he was ineligible for a further reduction of his sentence. See U.S.S.G.
§ 2D1.1(c)(1) (assigning a base offense level of 38 for cases involving 8.4
kilograms or more of crack cocaine). Dorval challenges the amount of cocaine
attributed to him, but the district court could not disturb its earlier finding about
drug quantity when considering Dorval’s motion to reduce. See United States v.
Cothran, 106 F.3d 1560, 1562–63 (11th Cir. 1997). The district court lacked the
authority to further reduce Dorval’s sentence.
We AFFIRM the denial of Dorval’s motion for a further reduction of his
sentence, and we DISMISS as moot the motion to stay the briefing schedule.
2