USA v. Nathaniah Frederick

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Nathaniah Fredericks in 12-12303, Appellant Elton Jones in 12-13346, Appellant Antonio Montrese Marlow in 12-14122. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. [12-12303, 12-13346, 12-14122]

Case: 12-12303

Date Filed: 07/31/2013

Page: 1 of 5

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-12303
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:08-cr-00265-MSS-KRS-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
NATHANIAH FREDERICKS,
a.k.a. Niah,
a.k.a. Smooth,
Defendant - Appellant.

________________________
No. 12-13346
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:11-cr-00326-CEH-KRS-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus

Case: 12-12303

Date Filed: 07/31/2013

Page: 2 of 5

ELTON JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
No. 12-14122
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:05-cr-00133-TJC-MCR-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANTONIO MONTRESE MARLOW,
Defendant - Appellant.

________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(July 31, 2013)
Before MARCUS, MARTIN and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

2

Case: 12-12303

Date Filed: 07/31/2013

Page: 3 of 5

In this consolidated appeal, Nathaniah Fredericks, Antonio Marlow, and
Elton Jones (the defendants) appeal the district court’s denials of their respective
motions to reduce their sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court
found that the defendants were each ineligible for relief pursuant to Amendment
750 because they were each sentenced as a career offender. On appeal, the
defendants, each of whom received sentences below the career offender guideline
range, argue that after the Supreme Court’s decision in Freeman v. United States,
___ U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (2011) (plurality opinion), a career offender
sentenced below the career offender guideline range is eligible for a sentence
reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 750. The
government counters that the defendants are ineligible for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence
reduction because, as career offenders, their guideline ranges would have been the
same if the amended guideline had been in effect at the time of their sentencing.
After careful consideration, 1 we reject the defendants’ argument and affirm the
district court’s denial of their § 3582(c)(2) motions.
I.
In United States v. Moore, we held that § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a
sentence reduction when a retroactively applicable guideline range amendment
1

“We review de novo a district court’s conclusions about the scope of its legal authority under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).” United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317, 1319 (11th Cir. 2012), cert.
denied, 133 S. Ct. 568 (2012).
3

Case: 12-12303

Date Filed: 07/31/2013

Page: 4 of 5

does not change the guideline range upon which a defendant’s sentence was based.
541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir. 2008). Thus, even when an amendment reduces
the base offense level applicable to a defendant, the amendment does not apply to a
defendant sentenced as a career offender because it does not affect the defendant’s
guideline range. Id.
After our decision in Moore, a plurality of the Supreme Court in Freeman v.
United States decided that defendants who entered into a Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement are eligible to seek § 3582(c)(2) relief when
the sentence contained in a plea agreement was based on a guideline range that was
later subject to a retroactive amendment. 131 S. Ct. at 2690 (plurality opinion).
We have explained that Freeman did not disturb our holding in Moore because the
Supreme Court’s decision in Freeman did not address “defendants [who] were
assigned a base offense level under one guideline section, but then assigned a total
offense level and guideline range under a different guideline section.” Lawson,
686 F.3d at 1321. Because Moore “remains binding precedent,” id., we are
compelled to reject the defendants’ argument that Freeman should be read to
undermine Moore.
We are also compelled to reject the defendants’ argument that Moore does
not apply to them because they each received sentences below the career offender
guideline range. Because the defendants are career offenders, their guideline range
4

Case: 12-12303

Date Filed: 07/31/2013

Page: 5 of 5

was based on § 4B1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. See id. at 1319.
That they each received a sentence reduction based on substantial assistance to law
enforcement does not alter the fact that their guideline ranges were based on
§ 4B1.1. In fact, one of the defendants in Moore also received a sentence
reduction based on substantial assistance, and we found that he was ineligible for
§ 3582(c)(2) relief because there was no “indication that the court based [his]
sentence on the guideline range that would have applied absent the career offender
designation” or that the reduction in his sentence lowered his sentencing range.
Moore, 541 F.3d at 1330. Here, because the defendants’ guideline ranges were
based on § 4B1.1, § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a reduction in their sentences.
See Lawson, 686 F.3d at 1321.
For these reasons, the decisions of the district court are AFFIRMED.

5