[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-10161 JUNE 20, 2011
JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:06-cr-20678-PCH-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SHEULO NELSON,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(June 20, 2011)
Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Sheulo Nelson, through counsel, appeals the district court’s order granting
his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion, and resentencing him to 120 months, the
statutory mandatory minimum sentence. On appeal, Nelson argues he is eligible
for a sentence below ten years based on the retroactive two-level crack reduction1
and the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010's (FSA) reduction of the mandatory minimum
to five years. Nelson concedes his arguments may be precluded by United States
v. Gomes, 621 F.3d 1343, 1346 (11th Cir. 2010). We agree, and affirm.2
The district court correctly determined it was only authorized to grant
Nelson a one-month reduction, from 121 months to 120 months. A statutory
mandatory minimum precluded the court from sentencing Nelson to less than 120
months, and Nelson did not qualify for any statutory exception. See Gomes, 621
F.3d at 1346 (holding that, when the government does not file a substantial
assistance motion under § 3553(e), and the defendant does not qualify for the
safety-valve exception under § 3553(f), there is no relevant authority that permits
a district court to impose a sentence below the statutory mandatory minimum).
1
Amendment 706, retroactive as of March 3, 2008, provides for a two-level reduction in
the base offense level for certain crack cocaine offenses. Based on this reduction, Nelson
contends he is eligible for a reduced guidelines range of 97 to 121 months.
2
We review a district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence pursuant
§ 3852(c)(2), based on a subsequent change in the Sentencing Guidelines, for an abuse of
discretion. United States v. Williams, 549 F.3d 1337, 1338 (11th Cir. 2008). “[W]here the issue
presented involves a legal interpretation, our review is de novo.” Id. at 1338-39.
2
Moreover, because the FSA took effect in August 2010, after Nelson committed
the offense and was sentenced, it is not applicable to the instant case. See id.
Thus, the district court did not err in reducing Nelson’s sentence by only one
month, as that was the only relief to which he was entitled.
AFFIRMED.
3