Case: 12-11725 Date Filed: 09/04/2012 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-11725
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:03-cr-14082-DLG-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
AARON LEROY GRIMES,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(September 4, 2012)
Before TJOFLAT, HULL and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-11725 Date Filed: 09/04/2012 Page: 2 of 4
On April 16, 2003, the District Court, having accepted Leroy Grimes’s plea
of guilty to possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of crack
cocaine, sentenced Grimes to prison for a term of 188 months. The court
sentenced him pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 as a career offender, since he had at
least two prior felony convictions for a crime of violence or a controlled substance
offense, rather than U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, the guideline applicable to crack cocaine
offenses.
On February 21, 2012, Grimes moved the District Court to modify his
sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), arguing that he should receive a
sentence reduction in light of Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines,
which amended U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 to reduce the base offense levels applicable to
crack cocaine offenses. The court denied his motion on the ground that
Amendment 750 did not lower Grimes’s Guidelines sentence range because he had
been sentenced under § 4B1.1, not § 2D1.1, the only guideline the Amendment
altered. Grimes now appeals the court’s ruling.
In United States v. Moore, we held that defendants sentenced as career
offenders under § 4B1.1 were not entitled to § 3582(c)(2) sentence reductions
because calculation of their Guidelines sentence ranges did not involve the base
offense levels prescribed by § 2D1.1. 541 F.3d 1323, 1327-28 (11th Cir. 2008).
2
Case: 12-11725 Date Filed: 09/04/2012 Page: 3 of 4
We noted that a reduction was not permitted where a retroactive amendment
lowered only the defendants’ base offense level rather than the applicable sentence
range. Id. at 1330.
In Freeman v. United States, the Supreme Court considered whether a
defendant who pled guilty pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement containing a
specific sentencing range was eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction. 564
U.S. at __, 131 S.Ct. 2685, 2690 (2011) (plurality opinion). The Court concluded
that when the District Court decided to accept a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea based on
the sentencing guidelines, the defendant was eligible to request a sentence
reduction pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) if a retroactive amendment later lowered the
applicable sentencing range. Id. at __, 131 S.Ct. at 2695; see Marks v. United
States, 430 U.S. 188, 193, 97 S.Ct. 990, 993, 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977) (quotation
omitted) (holding that, when a Supreme Court decision lacks a majority opinion,
“the holding of the Court may be viewed as the position taken by those Members
who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds”). Freeman, however,
did not involve a defendant sentenced as a career offender. See Freeman, 564
U.S. at __, 131 S.Ct. at 2691-92.
In United States v. Lawson, No. 11-15912, manuscript op. (11th Cir. July
13, 2012), we held that Moore remains binding precedent in this Circuit because it
3
Case: 12-11725 Date Filed: 09/04/2012 Page: 4 of 4
was not overruled by Freeman, as that case did not address defendants whose total
offense level was calculated according to the career offender provision, so
Freeman was not “clearly on point” with Moore. See id. at 6-7 (citing Freeman,
564 U.S. at __, 131 S.Ct. at 2690-2700). Given our Lawson holding, we are
obliged to affirm the District Court’s ruling.
AFFIRMED.
4