[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-14357 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 22, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 05-00017-CR-5-MCR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
COREY QUENTEZ SMITH,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(June 22, 2009)
Before BARKETT, HULL and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Corey Quentez Smith, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial
of his motion for a reduction of sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
Smith was convicted of drug offenses involving crack cocaine, and he filed his
motion pursuant to Amendment 706 to the sentencing guidelines, which lowered
the base offense levels applicable to crack cocaine offenses. The district court
denied § 3582 relief because, even though his sentence was reduced pursuant to
Fed.R.Crim.P. 35 as a result of his substantial assistance to the government, Smith
was originally sentenced to a statutory mandatory minimum sentence.
Smith argues that he was eligible for § 3582 relief because his statutory
mandatory minimum “guideline sentence” of life imprisonment was not his
“guideline range.” After a lengthy discussion of the terms “guideline sentence” and
“guideline range,” Smith claims that since § 3582 authorizes a reduction based on a
sentencing “range” that has been lowered, his mandatory “guideline sentence” did
not prohibit a reduction pursuant to Amendment 706. Smith also argues that
because he was originally sentenced to an indeterminate life sentence, his
substantial assistance reduction was at least partly based on his original guideline
range. Smith points out that should the relevant language in this sentencing scheme
be subject to two equally rational constructions, the rule of lenity requires that we
rule in his favor. Finally, Smith notes that had Amendment 706 been applied at his
initial sentencing, he would have been declared a career offender, and he requests
2
that we reduce his guideline range accordingly.
In his reply brief, Smith acknowledges that United States v. Williams, 549
F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2008), controls the argument presented in his case. However,
he argues that Williams was wrongly decided, citing policy reasons and repeating
arguments presented in his initial brief as they apply to Williams. Smith requests
that we await the rehearing decision in Williams.
Since the time of his final brief, this court has rejected the rehearing request
in Williams. United States v. Williams, __ F.3d __ (11th Cir. Mar. 5, 2009).
“Under the well-established prior panel precedent rule of this Circuit, the holding
of the first panel to address an issue is the law of this Circuit, thereby binding all
subsequent panels unless and until the first panel's holding is overruled by the
Court sitting en banc or by the Supreme Court.” Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d
1292, 1300 n. 8 (11th Cir.2001). Therefore this case is due to be
AFFIRMED.
3