UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6269
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEITH HARRIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:06-cr-00100-FL-2)
Submitted: July 13, 2012 Decided: July 26, 2012
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Keith Harris appeals a district court order denying
his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c) (2006). We affirm.
This court reviews for abuse of discretion a district
court’s decision on whether to reduce a sentence under
§ 3582(c)(2) but reviews de novo a court’s conclusion on the
scope of its legal authority under that provision. United
States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010). Under
§ 3582(c)(2), a district court may modify a defendant’s term of
imprisonment when the defendant is “sentenced to a term of
imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently
been lowered by the Sentencing Commission[.]” Any reduction
must be consistent with applicable policy statements offered by
the Sentencing Commission. Munn, 595 F.3d at 186.
Under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(2), a
defendant may not receive a new sentence pursuant to an amended
Guideline that is lower than the amended Guideline range. There
is an exception for those persons who received a sentence below
the Guidelines range of imprisonment due to their substantial
assistance. In those cases, a reduction below the amended
Guidelines range that is comparable to the original reduction
may be appropriate. Harris received a sentence below the
statutory minimum sentence as a result of the Government’s
2
motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (2006) and U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1.
A reduction is not authorized under § 3582(c)(2) and
is not consistent with the Guidelines’ policy statements if the
applicable amendment does not have the effect of lowering the
defendant’s Guidelines range because of the operation of another
statutory provision, such as a statutory minimum term of
imprisonment. See USSG § 1B1.10(2) cmt. n.1(A).
We conclude that the district court correctly found it
was not authorized to reduce Harris’ sentence further because
his sentence was based on the statutory mandatory minimum
sentence and not on a Guidelines range that was subsequently
lowered. See United States v. Johnson, 564 F.3d 419, 421-23
(6th Cir. 2009) (starting point for a downward departure under
§ 3553(e) is the statutory minimum sentence).
Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3