USA v. Shannon Steele

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Shannon Dewayne Steele. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam.

Case: 12-12238

Date Filed: 04/02/2013

Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-12238
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:03-cr-00023-KOB-PWG-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SHANNON DEWAYNE STEELE,
a.k.a. Shannon Steele,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(April 2, 2013)
Before MARCUS, WILSON and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 12-12238

Date Filed: 04/02/2013

Page: 2 of 4

Shannon Dewayne Steele, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 motion to reduce his sentence.
Steele is currently serving a total sentence of 300 months’ imprisonment, imposed
after Steele pleaded guilty in 2003 to one count of conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute cocaine base (crack) in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and three
counts of distribution of crack in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841.
Prior to sentencing, Steele’s guideline range was 151 to 188 months’
imprisonment, but Steele faced a statutory mandatory minimum sentence of life
imprisonment because of his prior drug convictions, pursuant to § 841(b)(1)(A).
Because the statutorily mandated sentence was greater than Steele’s guideline
range, the statutory mandatory minimum sentence of life became Steele’s guideline
sentence under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(b).
The government filed a motion for a downward departure under U.S.S.G.
§ 5K1.1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), which the district court granted, ultimately
sentencing Steele to 300 months’ imprisonment.
In October 2011, Steele filed a § 3582(c)(2) motion to modify his sentence.
In his § 3582 motion, he requested that the district court reduce his sentence in
light of: (i) Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which lowered the base
offense levels corresponding to some crack offenses in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1; and (ii)
the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA), Pub. L. No. 111-120, 124 Stat. 2372,
2

Case: 12-12238

Date Filed: 04/02/2013

Page: 3 of 4

which lowered the statutory mandatory minimum sentences for some crack
offenses. The district court denied Steele’s motion, and this appeal followed.
We “review de novo a district court’s conclusion that a defendant is not
eligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2).” United States v. Glover, 686
F.3d 1203, 1206 (11th Cir. 2012). A district court may modify a term of
imprisonment if a defendant was sentenced “to a term of imprisonment based on a
sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). If that total sentence was based on
something other than offense-level calculations, however, a guideline amendment
would not impact his total sentence, and he would be ineligible for relief under
§ 3582(c)(2). United States v. Mills, 613 F.3d 1070, 1076 (11th Cir. 2010).1
We first note that Steele does not argue on appeal that he was eligible for a
reduction in sentence under Amendment 750 or § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B). Therefore, any
claims in this respect are deemed waived. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401
F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). Moreover, we recently held in
United States v. Hippolyte, 11th Cir. 2013, — F.3d —, 2013 WL 978695 (No. 1115933, March 14, 2013), that “when a defendant’s sentence is based on a statutory

1

We note that the fact that Steele is serving a 300 month sentence as the result of the
government’s motion for a downward departure does not change the mandatory minimum—life
imprisonment—under which he was sentenced. See United States v. Williams, 549 F.3d 1337,
1341 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (“Further, we believe that a downward departure from this
mandatory minimum does not constitute a waiver or dispensing of this new ‘guideline range.’”).
3

Case: 12-12238

Date Filed: 04/02/2013

Page: 4 of 4

minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1) that is above the applicable guideline range,
Amendment 750 does not lower that guidelines sentence, and the defendant is not
eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction.” Id. at *3 (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Our decision in Hippolyte also forecloses Steele’s remaining argument: that
the FSA, enacted in 2010, applies retroactively to his 2003 sentence. In Hippolyte,
we explained that the statutory mandatory minimums that applied were the ones
that were in place when the defendant was sentenced. Id. at *5. There is simply
“no evidence that Congress intended [the FSA] to apply to defendants who had
been sentenced prior to the August 3, 2010 date of the Act’s enactment.” Id.
(alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, because the
FSA does not apply to Steele’s case, § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a sentence
reduction.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.

4