NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 22-2570
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
MAURICE LEWIS,
a/k/a MO,
a/k/a REESE,
a/k/a BLACKMAN,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 2:01-cr-00231-001)
District Judge: Honorable Paul S. Diamond
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
on March 17, 2023
Before: SHWARTZ, BIBAS, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 21, 2023)
____________________________________
___________
OPINION*
___________
PER CURIAM
Federal prisoner Maurice Lewis appeals pro se from the District Court’s decision
denying his motion for a sentence reduction filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). For
the reasons that follow, we will affirm that judgment.
I.
In 2003, Lewis pleaded guilty in the District Court to, among other crimes, conspiracy
to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine and possession of a firearm in furtherance
of a drug trafficking crime. Because “Lewis had committed two prior drug felonies[,] . . .
his crimes yielded a mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment on the conspiracy
charge and of five years (to be served consecutively) on the firearm-possession charge.”
United States v. Lewis, 274 F. App’x 223, 224 (3d Cir. 2008). The District Court imposed
that sentence, and we affirmed that judgment. See id. Later, the District Court denied his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion attacking his sentence, and we denied his related request for a
certificate of appealability. See C.A. No. 09-4603.
“In 2014, the United States Sentencing Commission promulgated Amendment 782 to
the [Sentencing] Guidelines, which retroactively reduced by two levels the base offense
for many drug quantities . . . .” United States v. Martin, 867 F.3d 428, 430 (3d Cir.
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
2
2017). A few years later, Lewis filed a pro se § 3582(c)(2) motion in the District Court,
seeking to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 782. The Government opposed that
motion. In July 2022, the District Court denied the motion, concluding that (1) Lewis
was not eligible for a sentence reduction because he was subject to the aforementioned
mandatory minimums, and (2) to the extent that he was now challenging those mandatory
minimums or alleging that other errors were made at sentencing, he could not pursue
those issues in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. This appeal followed. 1
II.
The District Court did not err in denying Lewis’s § 3582(c)(2) motion. To be eligible
for a sentence reduction under that statute, the movant’s sentence must be “based on a
sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.”
United States v. Flemming, 723 F.3d 407, 410 (3d Cir. 2013) (quoting 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2)). But Lewis cannot meet this eligibility requirement because his sentence is
based on statutory mandatory minimums. See United States v. Ortiz-Vega, 744 F.3d 869,
873 (3d Cir. 2014) (“[I]f a defendant is subjected to a mandatory minimum, he or she would
not [have] a sentence based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered [by
the Sentencing Commission].” (internal quotation marks omitted)). And to the extent that
he challenges the applicability of those mandatory minimums or otherwise collaterally at-
tacks his sentence, the District Court correctly concluded that he cannot do so in a §
1
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and “[w]e review de
novo a district court’s determination that a defendant is ineligible for relief under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2).” United States v. Rivera-Cruz, 904 F.3d 324, 327 (3d Cir. 2018).
3
3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 831 (2010). Accord-
ingly, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.
4