[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 2, 2009
No. 08-14858
THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 97-00067-CR-BH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MAURICE DELEON ROBERTS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
_________________________
(June 2, 2009)
Before TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Maurice Deleon Roberts, a federal prisoner convicted of crack cocaine
offenses, appeals his resentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment
7061 to the Sentencing Guidelines. On appeal, Roberts argues that the district court
erred in refusing to consider a sentence below the amended guidelines range based on
United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005). No reversible error has been shown;
we affirm.
We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions and questions of
statutory interpretation in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. United States v. Moore,
541 F.3d 1323, 1326 (11th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, McFadden v. United States, 129
S.Ct. 965 (2009), and cert. denied, (U.S. Mar. 9, 2009) (No. 08-8554).
Application of Amendment 706 to Roberts’s case shifted his guidelines range
from 262 to 327 months to 210 to 262 months. He originally had been sentenced to
290 months. In his section 3582(c)(2) motion, Roberts sought a reduction -- based on
his post-sentencing conduct -- greater than the two levels contemplated by
Amendment 706; and he argued that the district court had discretion to reduce his
sentence below the amended guidelines range under Booker. The district court
1
Amendment 706 -- which became retroactive on 3 March 2008, U.S.S.G. App. C,
Amend. 713 (Supp. 1 May 2008) -- reduced by two the base offense levels in crack cocaine
sentences calculated pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c).
2
determined that a sentence in the middle of the amended guidelines range was
appropriate and reduced Roberts’s sentence to 236 months. The court noted that it
had considered the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and Roberts’s post-
sentencing conduct.
We recently addressed whether Booker and Kimbrough2 prohibit Congress and
the Sentencing Commission from limiting the extent to which a district court may
reduce a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Melvin, 556 F.3d
1190 (11th Cir. 2009). petition for cert filed, (U.S. Feb. 10, 2009) (No. 08-8664). We
concluded that Booker and Kimbrough did not apply to section 3582(c)(2)
proceedings; a district court is bound by the limitations imposed on its discretion by
section 3582(c)(2) and the applicable policy statements by the Sentencing
Commission. Id. at 1192-93.
In the light of our decision in Melvin, we reject Roberts’s argument that the
district court had the authority to reduce his sentence below the amended guidelines
range pursuant to Booker and Kimbrough. The district court reduced Roberts’s
guidelines range to the extent authorized by section 3582(c)(2) and the U.S.S.G. §
1B1.10 policy statement and committed no resentencing error.
AFFIRMED.
2
Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 558 (2007).
3