Case: 11-15735 Date Filed: 04/02/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-15735
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:95-cr-14025-KLR-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHARLES E. STOKES,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 2, 2013)
Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and KRAVTICH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 11-15735 Date Filed: 04/02/2013 Page: 2 of 3
Charles Stokes appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) motion to modify his term of imprisonment. After thorough review,
we affirm.
Stokes was convicted in 1995 of possession with intent to distribute crack
cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court found that Stokes
was responsible for 63 grams of crack cocaine and, because Stokes had at least two
prior felony drug convictions, sentenced him to life, the mandatory minimum
under the statute in place at the time. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (1996). After
Stokes’s sentencing, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA),
which increased the amount of crack cocaine that triggers the mandatory minimum
life sentence. Stokes now argues that his sentence should be reduced because of
this statutory change.
We have previously held that “a sentencing court lacks jurisdiction to
consider a § 3582(c)(2) motion . . . when the defendant was sentenced on the basis
of a mandatory minimum.” United States v. Mills, 613 F.3d 1070, 1078 (11th Cir.
2010). That the FSA has subsequently changed that mandatory minimum does not
change the result. The FSA applies retroactively only to those defendants
sentenced after August 3, 2010, the date it took effect. United States v. Berry, 701
F.3d 374, 377-78 (11th Cir. 2012). Because Stokes was sentenced before the FSA
2
Case: 11-15735 Date Filed: 04/02/2013 Page: 3 of 3
took effect, it is not retroactive to him, and he is not eligible for a sentence
reduction. See id.
For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s denial of Stokes’s motion is
AFFIRMED.
3