[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-16330 APRIL 27, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 94-00201-CR-T-17-MAP
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL BOLDEN,
a.k.a. Mizzo,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(April 27, 2009)
Before DUBINA, BLACK and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Michael Bolden, through counsel, appeals the sentence imposed
by the district court following the grant of his pro se motion for a reduced
sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Bolden’s § 3582(c)(2) motion was
based on Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which reduced the base
offense levels applicable to crack cocaine offenses. On appeal, Bolden argues that
the district court erred in its application of § 3582(c)(2) when it refused to sentence
him below the minimum of the amended guideline range. Bolden asserts that,
despite the language of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, which constrains the court’s authority
to vary from the amended range, that section, like all of the guidelines, is merely
advisory under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738, 160 L. Ed.
2d 621 (2005).
“We review de novo a district court’s conclusions about the scope of its legal
authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).” United States v. James, 548 F.3d 983,
984 (11th Cir. 2008). A district court may modify a term of imprisonment “in the
case of a defendant who [was] sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a
sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Any reduction, however, must be
“consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing
Commission.” Id. The applicable policy statements, found in § 1B1.10, state that
“the court shall not reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C.
2
§ 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is less than the minimum of
the amended guideline range.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A).
We conclude that Bolden’s arguments are foreclosed by precedent. See
United States v. Melvin, 556 F.3d 1190, 1192-93 (11th Cir. 2009) (holding that
Booker does not “prohibit the limitations on a judge’s discretion in reducing a
sentence imposed by § 3582(c)(2) and the applicable policy statement by the
Sentencing Commission”), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Feb. 10, 2009) (No. 08-
8664). Accordingly, we affirm his sentence.
AFFIRMED.
3