USA v. Ivory Brinson

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Ivory Charles Brinson. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam.

Case: 13-10201

Date Filed: 03/19/2014

Page: 1 of 2

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-10201
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:04-cr-14027-KAM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
IVORY CHARLES BRINSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(March 19, 2014)
Before WILSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 13-10201

Date Filed: 03/19/2014

Page: 2 of 2

Ivory Charles Brinson appeals pro se the denial of his motion to reduce his
sentence. Brinson’s motion was based on Amendment 750 to the Sentencing
Guidelines and the Fair Sentencing Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We affirm.
Brinson’s arguments are foreclosed by our precedent. We have held that
defendants, like Brinson, whose sentences are based on the career offender
guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, not on the drug quantity tables, id. § 2D1.1, are
ineligible for a reduction of their sentence under Amendment 750. See United
States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir. 2012); United States v. Mills,
613 F.3d 1070, 1074–79 (11th Cir. 2010). Brinson also cannot obtain relief under
the Fair Sentencing Act. The Act “is not a guidelines amendment by the
Sentencing Commission . . . [that can] serve as a basis for a . . . sentence
reduction,” and does not apply to Brinson because he was sentenced before the Act
became effective on August 3, 2010. See United States v. Hippolyte, 712 F.3d
535, 542 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 181 (2013); United States v. Berry,
701 F.3d 374, 376–78 (11th Cir. 2012). The district court did not err by denying
Brinson’s motion.
We AFFIRM the denial of Brinson’s motion to reduce his sentence.

2