[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
DEC 03, 2007
No. 07-11891 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 90-00054-CR-T-17
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOE MACK FLOWERS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(December 3, 2007)
Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Joe Mack Flowers appeals the district court’s denial of his pro se
motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), which Flowers
had based on Amendment 505 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines
(“U.S.S.G.”). On appeal, Flowers argues that the district court abused its
discretion by denying his motion to reduce his sentence because Amendment 505
permitted a reduction. Flowers argues that, after the promulgation of Amendment
505, his base offense level would have been 38 instead of 43, and he would not
have received a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment.1
We review the denial of a motion to reduce sentence pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Vautier,
144 F.3d 756, 762 (11th Cir. 1998) (“A § 3582(c)(2) motion is discretionary and
the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying [the defendant’s]
motion.”).
A district court may modify a term of imprisonment “in the case of a
defendant who has been 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). “[O]nly amendments [to the sentencing
guidelines], clarifying or not, listed under subsection (c) of [U.S.S.G.] § 1B1.10,
and that have the effect of lowering the sentencing range upon which a sentence
1
A review of the PSI and Judgment shows that Flowers’s base offense level was actually
32, which was also his total offense level.
2
was based, may be considered for reduction of a sentence under § 3582(c)(2).”
United States v. Armstrong, 347 F.3d 905, 909 (11th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in
original).
It is not disputed that, because Flowers had two prior felony drug
convictions when he was sentenced, the district court was bound by statute to
impose a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. See 21 U.S.C.
841(b)(1)(A)(iii). Amendment 505 to the Sentencing Guidelines changed the
offense levels in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c), the Drug Quantity Table, and U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10 indicates that the change is retroactively applicable. See U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10(c), and U.S.S.G. App. C, amend. 505. Because the district court
sentenced Flowers to a statutory mandatory sentence of life imprisonment pursuant
to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b), the reduction of certain offense levels in relation to
corresponding drug quantities located in the Sentencing Guidelines Drug Quantity
Table, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c), had no effect on Flowers’s sentencing range, and
therefore he was not even entitled to be considered for a reduction in his sentence
based on 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). See Armstrong, 347 F.3d at 909 (for a sentence
reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), the relevant amendment to the
sentencing guidelines, pursuant to which the reduction is sought, must have the
effect of reducing the guidelines range under which the defendant was sentenced).
3
Accordingly, we conclude from the record that the district court did not abuse its
discretion by denying Flowers’s motion to reduce his sentence.
AFFIRMED.
4