[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 09-12056 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
AUGUST 21, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 95-03089-CR-3-RV
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHRISTOPHER GULLEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(August 21, 2009)
Before BLACK, CARNES and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Gulley, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction in sentence based on
Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines. On appeal, Gulley asserts
Amendment 706 has reduced his offense level from 36 to 34, and the district court
should have resentenced him below his amended guideline range based on the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the Supreme Court’s decisions in United States v.
Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558
(2007). In response, the government argues Gulley was originally sentenced to a
mandatory minimum term of life imprisonment, and, therefore, was not eligible for
a sentence reduction based on Amendment 706.
In reviewing the district court’s denial of a § 3582(c)(2) motion, we review
the district court’s legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Williams, 549 F.3d
1337, 1338-39 (11th Cir. 2008). Section 3582(c)(2) gives federal courts the
authority to consider reducing the sentence “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.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2). The commentary to the applicable guidelines policy statement,
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, provides that a reduction in sentence is not authorized if the
amendment “does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable
2
guideline range because of the operation of another guideline or statutory provision
(e.g., a statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment).” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10
comment. (n.1(A)).
Gulley was originally sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of life
imprisonment based on the fact he had four prior felony drug convictions. In
Williams, we held a defendant who was originally sentenced based on a statutory
minimum is not eligible for relief under Amendment 706. Williams, 549 F.3d at
1342. Because Amendment 706 did not alter that statutory minimum, Gulley was
not eligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). Id.
Moreover, Gulley’s arguments with respect to Booker and Kimbrough are
foreclosed by our precedent. We have held Booker and Kimbrough do not apply
to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings. United States v. Moreno, 421 F.3d 1217, 1220 (11th
Cir. 2005); United States v. Melvin, 556 F.3d 1190, 1192-93 (11th Cir. 2009).
Because the district court correctly found Gulley was not eligible for a sentence
reduction based on Amendment 706, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3