[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
AUGUST 10, 2009
No. 08-14951 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 94-00294-CR-T-26B
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DALE BALDWIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(August 10, 2009)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Dale Baldwin appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a reduction
of sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Baldwin’s § 3582(c)(2) motion
was based on Amendment 706 to the Guidelines, which reduced base offense
levels applicable to crack cocaine. On appeal, Baldwin argues that the district
court erred in finding that he was sentenced as a career offender because he
actually was sentenced to the statutory minimum sentence of life imprisonment,
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). Baldwin further argues that: (1) his statutory
life sentence violated Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 147
L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000), based on the limited facts proved at trial; and (2) he qualifies
for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction under the Supreme Court’s United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), line of caselaw, the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and the crack/cocaine powder disparity.
“We review de novo a district court’s conclusions about the scope of its
legal authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).” United States v. James, 548 F.3d
983, 984 (11th Cir. 2008). We may affirm the district court’s decision “on any
ground that finds support in the record.” United States v. Mejia, 82 F.3d 1032,
1035 (11th Cir. 1996).
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 sentencing
range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. 18
2
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). However, when the district court is determining whether to
modify a defendant’s sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2), “all original sentencing
determinations remain unchanged with the sole exception of the guideline range
that has been amended since the original sentencing.” United States v. Bravo, 203
F.3d 778, 781 (11th Cir. 2000) (emphasis in the original).
Although Baldwin is correct that he was not sentenced as a career offender
under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 because he instead received a mandatory life sentence
under § 841(b)(1)(A), the district court still properly denied § 3582(c)(2) relief.
We recently held that a defendant who was sentenced to a statutory minimum term
of imprisonment cannot have his guideline range lowered by the Sentencing
Commission. United States v. Williams, 549 F.3d 1337, 1339-41 (11th Cir. 2008).
Baldwin’s remaining arguments are likewise barred by precedent. See United
States v. Jones, 548 F.3d 1366, 1369 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding that Booker does
not, by itself, permit a district court to impose a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction);
Bravo, 203 F.3d 781 (prohibiting courts from revisiting original sentencing
decisions during a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding). Accordingly, we hereby affirm the
district court’s decision.
AFFIRMED. 1
1
Baldwin’s request for oral argument is denied.
3