USCA11 Case: 20-11836 Date Filed: 12/09/2021 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 20-11836
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM BROXTON,
a.k.a. William Green,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 7:04-cr-00020-HL-TQL-2
____________________
USCA11 Case: 20-11836 Date Filed: 12/09/2021 Page: 2 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 20-11836
Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
William Broxton appeals the district court’s denial of his mo-
tion for a reduced sentence under Section 404(b) of the First Step
Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (“First Step Act”). He
argues that his conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) is a “cov-
ered offense” under the First Step Act because the Fair Sentencing
Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372 (“Fair Sentencing
Act”) modified the drug quantities in the subsections cross-refer-
enced by Section 841(b)(1)(C). Because the Supreme Court re-
cently foreclosed that argument in Terry v. United States, 141 S.
Ct. 1858, 1862-64 (2021), we affirm.
In 2005, Broxton was convicted and sentenced for–among
other things–two counts of possessing with intent to distribute
crack cocaine, both in violation of 21 U.S.C § 841(a) & (b)(1)(C). In
2018, Broxton filed a motion for a sentence reduction under the
First Step Act, in which he argued that his Section 841(b)(1)(C) con-
viction was for a “covered offense.” The district court disagreed,
concluding instead that the First Step Act did not encompass con-
victions under Section 841(b)(1)(C). It therefore held that Broxton
was ineligible for a sentence reduction and denied his motion.
Broxton appeals that denial and argues that his Section
841(b)(1)(C) conviction was for a “covered offense.” In Terry, the
Supreme Court expressly held that a conviction for a violation
of Section 841(b)(1)(C) is not for a “covered offense” under the
USCA11 Case: 20-11836 Date Filed: 12/09/2021 Page: 3 of 3
20-11836 Opinion of the Court 3
Act. See 141 S. Ct. at 1862-64. Terry has therefore foreclosed Brox-
ton’s argument.
Finally, to the extent that Broxton argues that the district
court should have held a hearing, it was not required to do so be-
fore denying his motion. See United States v. Denson, 963 F.3d
1080, 1086-88 (11th Cir. 2020). And because Broxton is ineligible for
relief under the Act, we do not reach his arguments as to whether
the district court could apply the sentencing package doctrine to
reduce his sentences for counts unaffected by the Act.
AFFIRMED.