Case: 16-15488 Date Filed: 09/08/2017 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-15488
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:11-cr-00043-RH-EMT-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RAMONE ANTHONY SPRUILL,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(September 8, 2017)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 16-15488 Date Filed: 09/08/2017 Page: 2 of 3
Ramone Anthony Spruill appeals pro se the denial of his motions to reduce
his sentence and for the appointment of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
Spruill sought a reduction based on Amendment 794 to the Sentencing Guidelines.
We affirm.
The district court lacked authority to reduce Spruill’s sentence. For the
district court to reduce Spruill’s sentence, his motion must have been based on an
amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines that reduced his advisory guideline range,
see id., and that was listed in the applicable policy statement of the Sentencing
Commission, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c). See United States v. Armstrong, 347 F.3d 905,
907 (11th Cir. 2003). Because Amendment 794 is not listed in section 1B1.10(c),
the amendment could not serve as a basis to reduce Spruill’s sentence.
Spruill argues that Amendment 794 clarifies the commentary to section
3B1.2 of the Guidelines and should be given retroactive effect under section
3582(c), but “‘clarifying amendments’ . . . may only be retroactively applied on
direct appeal of a sentence or [to] a . . . motion [to vacate a sentence, 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255],” Armstrong, 347 F.3d at 909. “[O]nly amendments, clarifying or not,
listed under subsection (c) of § 1B1.10, and that have the effect of lowering the
sentencing range upon which a sentence was based, may be considered for
reduction of a sentence under § 3582(c)(2).” Id. Amendment 794 does not qualify
for retroactive application under section 3582(c)(2).
2
Case: 16-15488 Date Filed: 09/08/2017 Page: 3 of 3
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Spruill’s request for
appointed counsel. Spruill was not entitled to appointed counsel in seeking a
reduction of his sentence. See United States v. Webb, 565 F.3d 789, 794–95 (11th
Cir. 2009).
We AFFIRM the denial of Spruill’s motions to reduce his sentence and for
the appointment of counsel.
3