Case: 17-13183 Date Filed: 01/26/2018 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-13183
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cr-20914-WPD-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHUCK WAYNE BOYD,
a.k.a. Dred,
a.k.a. Jamaican,
a.k.a. Bumble Bee,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(January 26, 2018)
Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 17-13183 Date Filed: 01/26/2018 Page: 2 of 3
Chuck Wayne Boyd appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his second
motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), the district
court’s denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion, and the district
court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration. Boyd bases his appeal on
Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. He argues that he
was eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782, that he improperly
received a criminal history category of VI, and that his 300-month sentence created
a sentencing disparity and therefore violated 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Pleadings drafted pro se “are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings
drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v.
United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). However, a pro
se appellant still abandons an issue when he fails to offer argument on the issue in
his brief. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
Boyd’s pro se brief does not mention the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion or
the denial of his motion for reconsideration and thus he has abandoned any
arguments as to those aspects of his appeal. Id. As to Boyd’s motion to reduce his
sentence, the district court did not err by denying his motion because we have
previously affirmed the district court’s first denial of his motion to reduce his
sentence based on Amendment 782 and he has not demonstrated any exceptions to
the law-of-the-case doctrine. See United States v. Boyd, No. 15-13154 (11th Cir.
2
Case: 17-13183 Date Filed: 01/26/2018 Page: 3 of 3
December 3, 2015) (per curiam) (unpublished order); United States v. Tamayo, 80
F.3d 1514, 1520 (11th Cir. 1996) (explaining that under the law-of-the-case
doctrine “[a]n appellate decision binds all subsequent proceedings in the same case
not only as to explicit rulings, but also as to issues decided necessarily by
implication on the prior appeal”). Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3