Case: 19-12392 Date Filed: 09/10/2020 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 19-12392
Non-Argument Calendar
_____________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:00-cr-00347-LSC-JHE-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARIO ANTON LEE,
Defendant-Appellant.
_____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
_____________________
(September 10, 2020)
Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 19-12392 Date Filed: 09/10/2020 Page: 2 of 2
Mario Lee, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s order granting
his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on
Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.
The district court concluded that Amendment 782 made Mr. Lee – who was
originally sentenced to 105 years in prison – eligible for a sentence reduction, and
that his amended guideline range was 360 months to life imprisonment. The district
court granted the § 3582(c) motion and sentenced Mr. Lee to 360 months in prison.
The arguments Mr. Lee presents on appeal – which were not raised below and
are subject to plain-error review – are foreclosed by binding precedent. First, Mr.
Lee argues that he should have had a hearing, but a district court is not required to
hold a hearing on a § 3582(c) motion. See United States v. Caraballo-Martinez, 866
F.3d 1233, 1249 (11th Cir. 2017). Second, Mr. Lee seeks to attack his conviction
and prior sentencing determinations, but such challenges are not cognizable through
a § 3582(c) motion. See United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780 (11th Cir. 2000);
United States v. Fair, 326 F.3d 1317, 1318 (11th Cir. 2003).*
AFFIRMED.
_________
*We deny Mr. Lee’s request to recall the mandate in his 2002 criminal appeal, and motion for oral
argument. We grant Mr. Lee’s motion to amend the reply brief.
2