Case: 11-16091 Date Filed: 07/18/2012 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-16091
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:07-cr-00010-RS-WCS-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RANDALL TEHRON RANDOLPH,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(July 18, 2012)
Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Randall Tehron Randolph appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion
to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) pursuant to Amendment 750 to
Case: 11-16091 Date Filed: 07/18/2012 Page: 2 of 4
the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court denied his motion because his revised
sentencing range remained 240 months’ imprisonment pursuant to the mandatory
minimum in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b), even though he was sentenced below that minimum
due to his substantial assistance. On appeal, Randolph argues that he was entitled to
a reduction in his sentence because Congress intended for the amended statutory
minimum penalties under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124
Stat. 2372 (2010) (“FSA”), to apply retroactively. After thorough review, we affirm.
We review a district court’s decision to not to reduce a sentence pursuant to §
3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion. United States v. Davis, 587 F.3d 1300, 1303 (11th
Cir. 2009).
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 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
However, “[w]here a retroactively applicable guideline amendment reduces a
defendant’s base offense level, but does not alter the sentencing range upon which his
or her sentence was based, § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a reduction in sentence.”
United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir. 2008); see also U.S.S.G. §
1B1.10(a)(2)(B). Specifically, a reduction in a defendant’s term of imprisonment is
not authorized by § 3582(c)(2) where a retroactively-applicable amendment does not
2
Case: 11-16091 Date Filed: 07/18/2012 Page: 3 of 4
lower the defendant’s applicable guideline range due to the operation of another
statutory provision, such as a statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment.
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1). This applies even when the defendant was
originally sentenced below the statutory minimum due to the government’s filing of
a substantial-assistance motion, because a district court’s downward departure does
not “eliminate the otherwise applicable mandatory minimum.” United States v.
Williams, 549 F.3d 1337, 1340-41 (11th Cir. 2008).
In this case, Randolph was not eligible for a reduced sentence under §
3582(c)(2) because Amendment 750 did not alter his guideline range. Moore, 541
F.3d at 1330. As the record shows, Randolph’s guideline range was dictated by the
20-year statutory minimum sentence for his offense, rather than by his offense level
under the Guidelines. The fact that Randolph was sentenced below his statutory
minimum is irrelevant, since the sentencing court’s downward departure did not
eliminate the otherwise-applicable mandatory minimum. Williams, 549 F.3d at
1340-41. And although the district court in 2008 granted Randolph’s prior
unopposed § 3582(c)(2) motion and reduced his sentence pursuant to Amendment
706 (despite the fact that the prior reduction similarly would have been precluded by
the reasoning in Moore and Williams), this fact alone does not prevent the
government from opposing a further reduction under Amendment 750. Finally,
3
Case: 11-16091 Date Filed: 07/18/2012 Page: 4 of 4
Randolph’s arguments concerning the retroactive application of the FSA’s amended
mandatory-minimum penalties are outside the scope of § 3582(c)(2), since §
3582(c)(2) provides relief only when a defendant’s sentence is based on a sentencing
range that subsequently has been lowered by the U.S. Sentencing Commission, not
by a statutory amendment enacted by Congress. In short, the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying Randolph’s § 3582(c)(2) motion, and we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
4