Case: 12-14852 Date Filed: 08/21/2013 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-14852
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:91-cr-04020-WS-CAS-4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TERRANCE WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(August 21, 2013)
Before HULL, MARTIN and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-14852 Date Filed: 08/21/2013 Page: 2 of 5
Terrance Williams, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from the
district court’s denial of his pro se motion to modify his term of imprisonment,
filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Williams argues that the district court
erred by finding him ineligible for relief under § 3582(c)(2), and asserts that he is
entitled to a reduction in sentence based, in part, on United States Sentencing
Guidelines (USSG) Amendments 599 and 750.1 A jury convicted Williams in
1992 of one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846; one count of possession with intent to
distribute cocaine base, in violation of § 841(a)(1); and one count of possession of
a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
“[W]e review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions regarding the
scope of its authority under the Sentencing Guidelines.” United States v. Moore,
541 F.3d 1323, 1326 (11th Cir. 2008) (quotation marks omitted). A district court
may reduce a defendant’s term of imprisonment if the defendant’s sentence was
based upon a sentencing range that the Sentencing Commission subsequently
lowered after considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, so long as
the reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the
Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). “Where a retroactively
1
Williams also argues that he is entitled to a sentence reduction pursuant to USSG Amendments
505, 536, 706, and 711. However, he then concedes that his sentence does not change based on
those Amendments, so we do not need to address this argument.
2
Case: 12-14852 Date Filed: 08/21/2013 Page: 3 of 5
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.” Moore, 541 F.3d at
1330.
In determining whether a reduction is warranted, a court should determine
the guideline range that would have been applicable had the relevant amendment
been in effect at the time of the defendant’s sentencing. USSG § 1B1.10(b)(1). In
doing so, a court can only substitute the relevant amendment into the district
court’s original guidelines calculation, and it must leave all other guideline-
application decisions unaffected. Id.; United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780
(11th Cir. 2000).
Amendment 599 provides, in part, that where a defendant is convicted of an
18 U.S.C. § 924(c) offense for using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of
violence or a drug trafficking crime, the defendant cannot also receive a base
offense level enhancement in the underlying offense for his use of a firearm during
the commission of that offense. See USSG App. C, Amend. 599; see also United
States v. Brown, 332 F.3d 1341, 1344–45 (11th Cir. 2003). Amendment 750
lowered the base offense levels for particular crack cocaine quantities contained in
USSG § 2D1.1(c). See USSG App. C, Amend. 750.
3
Case: 12-14852 Date Filed: 08/21/2013 Page: 4 of 5
Williams’s original sentence was based on a total offense level of 47 and a
criminal history category of III, yielding an advisory guideline range of life
imprisonment. The Presentence Report prepared in March of 1992 assigned
Williams a base offense level under the Guidelines of 40 for distributing “between
5 and 8 kilograms of cocaine base.” See USSG § 2D1.1(c)(2) (1991). He then
received a two-level enhancement for possession of a firearm, a three-level
enhancement for his role in the offense, and a two-level enhancement for
obstruction of justice.
With the benefit of Amendment 750, Williams’s base offense level for five
to eight kilograms of crack cocaine is now 36. See USSG § 2D1.1(c)(2) (Nov.
2012). Amendment 599 does not apply to Williams because § 2K2.4, the section
modified by Amendment 599, see USSG App. C, Amend. 599, and applicable to
convictions under § 924(c), was not used to calculate Williams’s guideline range.
He was convicted of violating § 922(g), not § 924(c). Beyond that, the application
of a § 2D1.1 enhancement when a defendant is being sentenced for a violation of §
922(g) does not constitute double-counting under Amendment 599. Cf. United
States v. Webb, 665 F.3d 1380, 1381–83 (11th Cir. 2012) (where the Court
concluded that there was no double-counting where a § 2D1.1 enhancement was
applied in a § 922(g) case). Therefore, Williams’s total offense level with the
4
Case: 12-14852 Date Filed: 08/21/2013 Page: 5 of 5
benefit of the amendments is 43, which still results in an advisory guideline range
of life imprisonment. See USSG Sentencing Table.
On this record, Williams’s sentencing range has not been subsequently
lowered by the Sentencing Commission and a reduction of his sentence is not
authorized by § 3582(c)(2). See Moore, 541 F.3d at 1330.
AFFIRMED.
5