Case: 12-10076 Date Filed: 01/29/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-10076
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:99-cr-10035-KMM-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JERMAINE MATHIS,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(January 29, 2013)
Before WILSON, MARTIN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-10076 Date Filed: 01/29/2013 Page: 2 of 3
Jermaine Mathis appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 750 to the
Sentencing Guidelines. Mathis was sentenced as a career offender pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. On appeal, he concedes the limited scope of § 3582(c)(2)
proceedings, but urges this Court to review the drug quantity findings at
sentencing in the interest of justice.1
“[W]e review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions regarding the
scope of its authority under the Sentencing Guidelines.” United States v. Moore,
541 F.3d 1323, 1326 (11th Cir. 2008). A district court may not reduce a
defendant’s term of imprisonment unless the defendant’s sentence was based upon
a sentencing range that the Sentencing Commission subsequently lowered, the
district court considers the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and the reduction is
consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing
Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
Mathis’s sentence was based on his career-offender enhancement, and
Amendment 750 therefore had no effect on his sentencing range under § 4B1.1.
See Moore, 541 F.3d at 1327 (holding that when a defendant is sentenced as a
1
Mathis requests that, in the alternative to granting a sentence reduction, this Court
reopen his prior 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, which was denied in 2007. Mathis may not
use his § 3582(c)(2) motion to reopen his § 2255 motion to vacate. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).
2
Case: 12-10076 Date Filed: 01/29/2013 Page: 3 of 3
career offender, the sentence is “based on” the guideline ranges applicable to
career offenders under § 4B1.1, not the levels set forth in § 2D1.1). Moreover, the
district court was not permitted to change any of the original sentencing
calculations in the § 3582(c)(2) proceedings except those affected by a retroactive
guideline amendment. See United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 781 (11th Cir.
2000). Therefore, Mathis is ineligible for relief under § 3582(c)(2), and the
district court did not err in denying his motion.
AFFIRMED.
3