[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 09-10740 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar JUNE 24, 2009
________________________ THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 05-00024-CR-5-MCR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALBERTA RENEE PETERSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(June 24, 2009)
Before CARNES, MARCUS and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Alberta Renee Peterson appeals the district court’s denial of her motion for a
reduction of sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on Amendment
706 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which reduced the base offense levels applicable
to crack cocaine offenses. On appeal, Peterson concedes that her argument is
foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Williams, 549 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir.
2008), but in order to preserve her claim, she argues that Williams was wrongly
decided. After thorough review, we affirm.
We conduct a de novo review of issues of legal interpretation in the
§ 3582(c)(2) context. Williams, 549 F.3d at 1338-39. We are bound to follow our
prior binding precedent “unless and until it is overruled by this [C]ourt en banc or
by the Supreme Court.” United States v. Vega-Castillo, 540 F.3d 1235, 1236 (11th
Cir. 2008).
A district court may modify a term of imprisonment in the case of a
defendant who was 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). However, when a defendant is subject to a statutory
mandatory minimum that replaces her guideline range, that defendant is ineligible
for a sentence reduction under Amendment 706. Williams, 549 F.3d at 1338-39,
1342. This ineligibility is not rectified by a downward departure below the
statutory minimum, when that departure is made pursuant to a U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1
substantial assistance motion. Id. at 1342.
2
Because Peterson was subject to a mandatory minimum term of 120 months’
imprisonment, Amendment 706 did not change her guideline range, even though
she ultimately received a § 5K1.1 downward departure and was sentenced to 75
months’ imprisonment. See id. As a result, under Williams, Peterson was
ineligible for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction. See id. Moreover, Peterson’s
argument that Williams was wrongly decided is misplaced at this stage of the
appellate process because we are bound by our prior decision in Williams. See
Vega-Castillo, 540 F.3d at 1236. Therefore, the district court lacked the authority
to modify Peterson’s sentence, and we affirm its decision.
AFFIRMED.
3