[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-13386 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
November 24, 2008
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 94-00146-CR-T-23EAJ
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JIMMY LEE FIELDS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(November 24, 2008)
Before ANDERSON, HULL and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jimmy Lee Fields appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. After review, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
In April 1995, a jury found Fields guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent
to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and
864. Because Fields’s offense involved both crack cocaine and powder cocaine,
the presentence investigation report (“PSI”) converted the amount of each
substance into its marijuana equivalent and set Fields’s base offense level at 34.
Based on a total offense level of 34, and a criminal history category of III, the PSI
calculated a guidelines range of 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment.
However, Fields had prior felony drug convictions, which subjected him to a
mandatory minimum term of life imprisonment, pursuant to 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(b)(1)(A)(iii). Because the guidelines range of 188 to 235 months was lower
than the statutory mandatory minimum life sentence, the statutory mandatory
minimum life sentence became his guidelines sentence. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(b)
(making the statutory mandatory minimum sentence the guidelines sentence if it is
greater than the high end of the otherwise applicable guidelines range). The
district court adopted the PSI’s factual findings and guidelines calculations and
imposed a life sentence.
On March 3, 2008, Fields filed a § 3582 motion, seeking a modification of
his sentence of life imprisonment. The motion was based on Amendment 706 to
2
the Sentencing Guidelines, which lowered the offense levels under U.S.S.G.
§ 2D1.1 for offenses involving crack cocaine and was made retroactive by
Amendment 713. See U.S.S.G. app. C, amends. 706, 713; United States v.
Stratton, 519 F.3d 1305, 1307 (11th Cir. 2008).
The district court denied the motion, concluding that it was not authorized to
reduce Fields’s sentence. The district court explained that, because Fields was
sentenced to a statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, Amendment
706 did not lower Fields’s applicable guidelines range. Fields filed this appeal.
II. DISCUSSION
Section 3582(c)(2) prohibits a court from modifying a term of imprisonment
after it has been imposed except “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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 994(o).” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1) (Supp. May
1, 2008). However, “[w]here a retroactively applicable guideline amendment
reduces a defendant’s base offense level, but does not alter the sentencing range
upon which his or her sentence was based, § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a
reduction in sentence.” United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir.
2008); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) (May 1, 2008) (providing that a
3
reduction is not authorized by § 3582(c)(2) if “an amendment listed in subsection
(c) does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline
range”).1 Thus, if the defendant’s original sentence for a crack cocaine offense was
based on something other than § 2D1.1’s drug quantity tables, such as a career
offender provision or a statutory mandatory minimum sentence, the defendant is
not eligible for a sentence reduction because Amendment 706 does not lower the
defendant’s sentencing range. See Moore, 541 F.3d at 1327-28 (11th Cir. 2008);
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, cmt. n.1(A) (Supp. May 1, 2008).
Here, Fields’s life sentence was based not on the amount of crack cocaine
attributed to him, but rather on the statutory mandatory minimum life sentence in
21 U.S.C. § 841(b).2 Thus, although Amendment 706 lowered the base offense
level for Fields’s crack cocaine offense, it did not lower his applicable guidelines
range. Even after Amendment 706, Fields’s sentencing range remains life
imprisonment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(b). Therefore, the district court
correctly concluded that it lacked authority under § 3582(c)(2) to reduce Fields’s
sentence.
1
We review de novo a district court’s legal conclusion regarding the scope of its authority
to modify a sentence under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. White, 305 F.3d 1264, 1267 (11th Cir.
2002).
2
Fields’s arguments that the district court did not impose a life sentence pursuant to § 841(b)
and that the government abandoned its argument that the life sentence was based on § 841(b) are
without merit.
4
We reject Fields’s argument that the district court violated United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), by treating the Sentencing
Commission’s policy statement in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) as mandatory.
Section 3582(c)(2), which is not advisory, independently authorizes a district court
to modify a sentence only when the defendant’s original sentence is “based on a
sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered” by an amendment to the
Sentencing Guidelines. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). And, because Fields is not
eligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2)’s standard, the district court had no
occasion to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and exercise its discretion to
impose a new sentence.
Likewise, because Fields is not eligible for resentencing under § 3582(c)(2),
we do not address Fields’s remaining arguments concerning the procedures a
district court must follow and the standards it must apply in determining whether to
exercise its discretion and reduce a sentence. Finally, Fields’s arguments regarding
the deficiencies in his § 851 information are outside the scope of this proceeding,
and we do not address them. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (limiting proceedings
under the statute to cases where a retroactive amendment affects the applicable
guidelines range).
AFFIRMED.
5