Case: 13-12692 Date Filed: 08/28/2014 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-12692
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:90-cr-00145-CB-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAMES ALLEN STARKS,
a.k.a. Big Al,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
________________________
(August 28, 2014)
Before MARTIN, ROSENBAUM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
James Allen Starks, proceeding pro se, is a federal prisoner serving a
sentence of life imprisonment for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
Case: 13-12692 Date Filed: 08/28/2014 Page: 2 of 4
cocaine (powder) and cocaine base (crack), structuring financial transactions, and
money laundering. In 2013, Starks moved to modify his sentence pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 750 of the United States Sentencing
Guidelines (USSG). The district court denied this motion, finding that
Amendment 750 does not lower Starks’s base offense level because his offense
involved 104 kilograms of cocaine base. Starks now appeals, and the government
has filed a motion for summary affirmance and a motion to stay the briefing
schedule. After careful review, we GRANT the government’s motion to
summarily affirm the district court’s ruling. As a result, the government’s motion
to stay the briefing schedule is DENIED as moot.
Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of the essence, such
as “situations where important public policy issues are involved or those where
rights delayed are rights denied,” or where “the position of one of the parties is
clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the
outcome of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the appeal is
frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir.
1969). 1 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), a district court may modify a
defendant’s term of imprisonment where the defendant was sentenced “based on a
1
In Bonner v. Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) the Eleventh Circuit adopted
as binding precedent the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered before October 1, 1981.
Id. at 1209.
2
Case: 13-12692 Date Filed: 08/28/2014 Page: 3 of 4
sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
Commission.” However, a sentence reduction is not authorized under § 3582(c)(2)
if the relevant amendment “does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s
applicable guideline range.” USSG § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B); United States v. Hippolyte,
712 F.3d 535, 542 (11th Cir. 2013).
Summary disposition for the government is appropriate here because Starks
is clearly not entitled to be resentenced pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment
750. It is true that Amendment 750 reduces Stark’s base offense level from 42 to
38. See USSG § 2D1.1(c)(1) (Nov. 2010) (providing that the base offense level is
38 for offenses involving 8.4 kilograms or more of cocaine base). But Stark’s total
offense level and his guidelines range remain the same because of a four-level
leadership role enhancement and a two-level enhancement for obstruction of
justice. See USSG ch. 5, pt. A, comment. (n.2) (“An offense level of more than 43
is to be treated as an offense level of 43.”); United States v. Starks, 409 F. App’x
264, 265 (11th Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (explaining why Amendment 706 does not
entitle Starks to be resentenced).
Starks responds that the factual findings at his original sentencing were
clearly erroneous. He further argues that his sentencing court failed to consider the
§ 3553(a) factors when imposing his sentence. But these arguments all miss the
mark because a sentencing adjustment pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) “does not
3
Case: 13-12692 Date Filed: 08/28/2014 Page: 4 of 4
constitute a de novo resentencing.” United States v. Moreno, 421 F.3d 1217, 1220
(11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (quotation marks omitted); see U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10(b)(1) (stating that courts should substitute only the amendment and
“leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected”). Thus, previous
factual and legal determinations from the original sentencing cannot be revisited at
this stage in the proceedings. See United States v. Cothran, 106 F.3d 1560, 1562–
63 (11th Cir. 1997); United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780 (11th Cir. 2000)
(“All other guideline application decisions made during the original sentencing
remain intact.” (quotation marks omitted)). For these reasons, the district court
properly concluded that it lacked authority to reduce Starks’s sentence pursuant to
Amendment 750.
The government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the
judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, and the government’s motion to stay
the briefing schedule is DENIED as moot.
4