USA v. Jamie Mobley

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Jamie Larun Mobley. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam.

Case: 12-13701

Date Filed: 04/11/2013

Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-13701
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:06-cr-00338-VMC-TEM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAMIE LARUN MOBLEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(April 11, 2013)
Before CARNES, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jamie Larun Mobley, a federal prisoner convicted of a crack cocaine
offense, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for

Case: 12-13701

Date Filed: 04/11/2013

Page: 2 of 4

a sentence reduction based on Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines,
which revised the crack cocaine quantity tables in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). See
U.S.S.G. App. C, amend. 750 (Nov. 2011). The district court concluded that
Mobley was ineligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction because Mobley’s 151-month
sentence was based on his status as a career offender, pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 4B1.1. After review, we affirm. 1
Pursuant to § 3582(c)(2), the district court may reduce a defendant’s prison
term if the defendant was “sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a
sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. [§] 994(o).” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); see also
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1). However, “[w]here a retroactively applicable guideline
amendment reduces a defendant’s base offense level, but does not alter the
sentencing range upon which his or her sentence was based, § 3582(c)(2) does not
authorize a reduction in sentence.” United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1330
(11th Cir. 2008); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) (providing that a
§ 3582(c)(2) reduction is not authorized if the amendment “does not have the effect
of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range”).
A sentence reduction is not authorized if the amendment does not lower the
defendant’s applicable guidelines range “because of the operation of another
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. James, 548 F.3d 983, 984 (11th Cir. 2008).
2

Case: 12-13701

Date Filed: 04/11/2013

Page: 3 of 4

guideline or statutory provision.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A). As such, when
a crack cocaine defendant’s offense level was determined by the career offender
provision, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, rather than § 2D1.1(c), the defendant is not eligible
for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction based on amendments to the crack cocaine offense
levels in § 2D1.1(c) because those amendments did not lower the sentencing range
upon which the defendant’s sentence was based. See Moore, 541 F.3d at 1327
(involving Amendment 706).
The district court did not err in denying Mobley’s request for a § 3582(c)(2)
reduction. At his sentencing, Mobley was designated a career offender, and his
offense level and resulting sentencing range were based on U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, not
on U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). Amendment 750 did not affect the offense levels in
§ 4B1.1 and therefore did not lower Mobley’s sentencing range. Under our
binding precedent in Moore, the district court did not have authority under
§ 3582(c)(2) to reduce Mobley’s sentence.
Although Mobley argues that Moore was abrogated by the Supreme Court’s
recent decision in Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (2011),
this Court recently rejected that argument in United States v. Lawson. See United
States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317, 1320-21 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___,
133 S. Ct. 568 (2012) (concluding that, even after Freeman, Moore remains
binding precedent in our Circuit).
3

Case: 12-13701

Date Filed: 04/11/2013

Page: 4 of 4

Mobley contends that Lawson “should not control [his] appeal” because,
unlike the defendant in Lawson, Mobley received a U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 downward
departure for substantial assistance and was ultimately sentenced below his career
offender guidelines range. This factual distinction is not a basis to ignore
Lawson’s conclusion that Freeman did not overrule Moore. Moreover, it is not
Lawson, but Moore that controls Mobley’s appeal. In Moore, one of the
defendants, like Mobley, received a substantial assistance downward departure.
541 F.3d at 1330. Yet, we concluded in Moore that the defendant’s sentence was
based on his career offender sentencing range and that he was therefore ineligible
for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction. Id. We remain bound by Moore, and, under Moore,
Mobley was not eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction.
For these reasons, the district court correctly concluded it did not have
authority to reduce Mobley’s sentence under § 3582(c)(2).
AFFIRMED.

4