Case: 12-10927 Date Filed: 02/01/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-10927
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:06-cr-00333-JHH-HGD-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
NORMAN OLIVER GRANT,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(February 1, 2013)
Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Norman Grant, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction. Because the district court
correctly concluded it lacked authority to reduce Grant’s sentence, we affirm.
Case: 12-10927 Date Filed: 02/01/2013 Page: 2 of 3
A jury convicted Grant of possessing marijuana, powder cocaine, and crack
cocaine with intent to distribute, along with two other charges, in 2006. At
sentencing, the district court found Grant’s sentencing guidelines range was 87 to
108 months’ imprisonment. Because Grant was responsible for 12.63 grams of
crack cocaine, however, he was subject to a statutory mandatory minimum
sentence of 120 months, and the district court sentenced him to 120 months’
imprisonment. Subsequently, Grant filed a motion to reduce that sentence based
upon the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA), Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372,
and amendments to the sentencing guidelines. The district court denied that
motion and this is Grant’s appeal.
We review de novo the district court’s conclusions about its authority to
modify a defendant's sentence under § 3582. United States v. Liberse, 688 F.3d
1198, 1200 n.1 (11th Cir. 2012). A court may modify an inmate's term of
imprisonment under § 3582 only in limited circumstances. None of those
circumstances are present here.
Grant contends Amendment 750 to the sentencing guidelines authorized the
district court to reduce his sentence. But the district court could not have reduced
Grant’s sentence based upon Amendment 750 because he received a statutory
mandatory minimum sentence, rather than one based upon the guidelines
calculation for his offenses. See United States v. Glover, 686 F.3d 1203, 1207
2
Case: 12-10927 Date Filed: 02/01/2013 Page: 3 of 3
(11th Cir. 2012). And Grant’s contention that he is eligible for a sentence
reduction based upon the FSA’s alteration of what drug quantities correspond to
which statutory minimum penalties is, likewise, squarely foreclosed by our
precedent. The changes in the FSA to the statutory mandatory minimum sentences
provide no foundation for a § 3582(c)(2) motion and do not permit a district court
to reduce the sentence of a defendant sentenced before the FSA’s effective date.
United States v. Berry, 701 F.3d 374, 377-78 (11th Cir. 2012).
Accordingly, the district court’s denial of Grant’s § 3582(c)(2) motion is
AFFIRMED.
3