[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
AUGUST 24, 2009
No. 08-17231 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 07-00018-CR-4-RH/WCS-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ERIC JAMES MILTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(August 24, 2009)
Before BARKETT, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Eric James Milton, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of
his motion for a reduced sentence, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and
Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines. After a thorough review of the
record, we affirm.
Milton pleaded guilty to conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, and possess
with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine and more than fifty
kilograms of crack. Milton faced a mandatory minimum of life imprisonment for
this offense. After the government filed a substantial assistance motion under
U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, which permitted the court to sentence Milton below the
mandatory minimum provided by statute, the court sentenced Milton to 144
months’ imprisonment.
Milton has now filed a motion for a reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c), asserting that he was entitled to a reduction based on Amendment 706
and Fed. R. Crim. P. 35. The district court denied the motion. This appeal
followed.
We review a district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence under
§ 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion. United States v. Williams, 549 F.3d 1337,
1338-39 (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
guideline range that has been lowered subsequently by the Sentencing
Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Where the original sentencing range was
2
based on factors other than § 2D1.1, such as the application of a statutory
mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, the court is not permitted to reduce the
sentence under Amendment 706 because the amendment would not lower the
applicable guidelines range. Williams, 549 F.3d at 1339-42. Further, “[a] district
court’s downward departure to a sentence . . . [does] not make Amendment 706
applicable” where the defendant was sentenced based upon a statutorily required
minimum sentence, but received a § 5K1.1 downward departure. Id. at 1340.
Because Milton’s sentence was based upon the applicable statutory
mandatory minimum of life imprisonment, he was ineligible for a reduction under
§ 3582(c)(2) based upon Amendment 706. The fact that he received a downward
departure based on § 5K1.1 does not alter this conclusion. Williams, 549 F.3d at
1340. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Milton’s § 3582(c)(2)
motion.
AFFIRMED.
3