[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-10143 AUGUST 10, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 07-00048-CR-ORL-19DAB
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LEONARD V. SMITH,
a.k.a. Ray-Ray,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(August 10, 2009)
Before TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Leonard V. Smith appeals from 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, Smith argues that the district court erred
in finding that it lacked jurisdiction to reduce his sentence. After careful review,
we affirm.
In considering 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 provides that a reduction in sentence is not authorized
if the amendment “does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable
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)).
In Williams, we held that a defendant who was originally sentenced based
on a statutory minimum was not entitled to relief under Amendment 706. 549 F.3d
at 1342. We reasoned that a defendant is not entitled to a reduction in sentence
where his original guideline range was based on something other than the drug
2
quantity guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. Id. at 1339. In Williams’s case, his original
guideline range was based on a 120-month statutory minimum sentence, rather
than the drug quantity guidelines affected by Amendment 706. Id. at 1339-41.
The fact that Williams had received a downward departure for substantial
assistance did not change the outcome because that departure did not waive the
statutory minimum. Id. Indeed, the point of departure, the statutory minimum,
was unaffected by Amendment 706. Id. at 1340.
Smith’s arguments are foreclosed by our opinion in Williams. The low end
of Smith’s original guideline range was based on a statutory minimum sentence of
60 months. This statutory minimum was unaffected by Amendment 706. Because
Smith originally received a sentence below the statutory minimum due to his
substantial assistance, Amendment 706 did not authorize a sentence reduction in
his case. Moreover, the fact that Smith received a downward departure does not
change the outcome because this departure did not waive the statutory minimum
sentence. See id. at 1339-41.1 Accordingly, the district court did not err in
denying Smith’s § 3582(c)(2) motion.
AFFIRMED.
1
Nor it is significant that Smith’s statutory minimum sentence was based on drug
quantity, whereas the statutory minimum in Williams was based in part on prior drug
convictions. In both cases, the statutory minimum effectively displaced the low end of the range
calculated using the base offense levels in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1.
3