Case: 12-11234 Date Filed: 02/21/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-11234
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:98-cr-06212-WJZ-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
L Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL ROBERT LEE,
l Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(February 21, 2013)
Before CARNES, BARKETT and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-11234 Date Filed: 02/21/2013 Page: 2 of 3
Michael Robert Lee, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district
court=s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction of sentence.
Lee is currently serving concurrent sentences of 300 months’ imprisonment for
possession with intent to distribute cocaine and 180 months’ imprisonment for being
a felon in possession of a firearm, and a consecutive sentence of 60 months’
imprisonment for carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime. Lee’s
300-month sentence was based in part on his status as a career offender under
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. On appeal, Lee argues: (1) his “offense statutory maximum”
was improperly calculated under Amendment 506, (2) the district court improperly
weighed the § 3553(a) factors at his original sentencing, (3) he was convicted for
possession of 27.3 grams of cocaine, but sentenced to possession of more than 28
grams of cocaine, and (4) he should not have been charged with carrying a firearm
in relation to a drug trafficking crime.
We review de novo the district court=s legal conclusions regarding the scope
of its authority under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. James, 548 F.3d 983, 984
(11th Cir. 2008). The district court Amay not modify a term of imprisonment once
it has been imposed except . . . (2) in the case of a defendant who has been
sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has
subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.@ 18 U.S.C.
2
Case: 12-11234 Date Filed: 02/21/2013 Page: 3 of 3
§ 3582(c)(2). A § 3582(c)(2) proceeding “does not constitute a de novo
resentencing,” and “all original sentencing determinations remain unchanged with
the sole exception of the guideline range that has been amended since the original
sentencing.” United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 781 (11th Cir. 2000).
The district court did not err in denying Lee’s motion. Lee’s claims
regarding the § 3553(a) factors, the weight of cocaine, and the carrying of a
firearm charge concern “original sentencing determinations,” rather than the
lowering of a sentencing range by the Sentencing Commission, and were thus
outside the scope of the § 3582(c)(2) proceedings. See Bravo, 203 F.3d at 781.
As to Lee’s claim regarding Amendment 506, the language upon which his
argument relies was superseded in 1997 by Amendment 567’s definition of the
same term. See U.S.S.G. App. C, Amends. 506, 567. Moreover, § 3582(c)(2)
authorizes modifications of sentences based on sentencing ranges “subsequently . . .
lowered by the Sentencing Commission,” and Amendment 506 could not have
“subsequently . . . lowered” Lee’s sentencing range, as it became effective five years
before Lee was sentenced. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend.
506. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Lee’s motion.
AFFIRMED.
3