Case: 16-16146 Date Filed: 09/07/2017 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-16146
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:05-cr-00018-JRH-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JIMMY ANFIELD,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(September 7, 2017)
Before MARCUS, FAY, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
Case: 16-16146 Date Filed: 09/07/2017 Page: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Jimmy Anfield appeals the denial of his motion for reconsideration of his
motion to reduce sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
As an initial matter, the government argues that we should dismiss the
appeal because the motion for reconsideration was untimely and, therefore, the
appeal of its denial was also untimely. Although Anfield’s appeal is untimely for
the denial of his initial § 3582(c)(2) motion, we do not dismiss his appeal on his
motion for reconsideration; he filed his notice of appeal within 14 days of the
district court denying it.
About the substance of the appeal, Anfield argues that the district court
abused its discretion because it based the denial on erroneous facts – to be specific,
that he had already received a sentence reduction to 137 months’ imprisonment
and that he was still serving a sentence for his conviction under 18 U.S.C. §
922(g)(1). His argument is incorrect. Assuming arguendo that the district court
had jurisdiction to hear his untimely motion (i) the district court did not find that
the total sentence had already been reduced; and (ii) the district court correctly
concluded that his guideline range was controlled by the offense level for his §
922(g)(1) conviction.
2
Case: 16-16146 Date Filed: 09/07/2017 Page: 3 of 3
To explain in more detail, we conclude that the district court did not abuse
its discretion when it denied the motion to reconsider. First, contrary to Anfield’s
argument on appeal, the district court found that his guideline range had been
reduced to 110 to 137 months, not that his total sentence had been reduced to 137
months. Second, Amendment 782 did not change Anfield’s guideline range.
Although he may have completed the 120-month custodial term originally imposed
for the firearm offense, the district court was required to apply the amendment as if
it had applied on the day he was sentenced and leave all other guideline application
decisions unaffected.
So, we affirm the denial of Anfield’s motion to reconsider the denial of his
§ 3582(c)(2) motion.
AFFIRMED.
3