Case: 12-13457 Date Filed: 02/01/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-13457
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:96-cr-00065-CDL-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CURTIS EUGENE MITCHELL,
a.k.a. Paradise,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(February 1, 2013)
Before HULL, JORDAN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-13457 Date Filed: 02/01/2013 Page: 2 of 3
Curtis Eugene Mitchell appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction. Mitchell’s guidelines range was 240
to 293 months due to the operation of a statutory mandatory minimum sentence
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). His § 3582(c)(2) motion was based on
Amendment 750, which permanently amended U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 by revising the
drug quantity table to reduce offense levels associated with various amounts of
crack cocaine. On appeal, Mitchell argues the district court erred in denying his
§ 3582(c)(2) motion because he was sentenced to a statutory mandatory maximum
sentence, rather than a statutory mandatory minimum sentence. He also argues the
sentencing enhancement he received at his original sentencing was invalid.
“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). In United States v. Mills, 613 F.3d 1070 (11th Cir. 2010), we
held that “a sentencing court lacks jurisdiction to consider a § 3582(c)(2) motion,
even when an amendment would lower the defendant’s otherwise-applicable
Guidelines sentencing range, when the defendant was sentenced on the basis of a
mandatory minimum.” Id. at 1078.
Mitchell was subject to a statutory mandatory minimum of 240 months
pursuant to § 841(b)(1)(A). Because his guidelines range was based on a statutory
mandatory minimum—and not the maximum, as he contends—Amendment 750
2
Case: 12-13457 Date Filed: 02/01/2013 Page: 3 of 3
did not lower his guidelines range, and Mitchell was not eligible for a sentence
reduction under § 3582(c)(2). Mills, 613 F.3d at 1078; see also United States v.
Glover, 686 F.3d 1203, 1206 (11th Cir. 2012) (holding that “an amendment that
alters the initial calculation of a guidelines range is not to be applied in a case
where . . . a mandatory minimum would have trumped the initial calculation and
dictated the final guidelines range anyway”). Moreover, to the extent Mitchell
seeks to challenge the enhancements to his original sentence, the district court
lacks authority to revisit that determination in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See
Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2694 (2010) (holding that because “the
aspects of his sentence that Dillon [sought] to correct were not affected by the
Commission’s amendment to § 2D1.1, they [were] outside the scope of the
proceeding authorized by § 3582(c)(2), and the District Court properly declined to
address them”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Mitchell’s
§ 3582(c)(2) motion.
AFFIRMED.
3