USA v. Carlton Potts

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Carlton Potts. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 15-12311

Date Filed: 03/08/2016

Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-12311
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:06-cr-80070-DMM-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CARLTON POTTS,
a.k.a. Pep,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(March 8, 2016)

Before TJOFLAT, JILL PRYOR, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

Case: 15-12311

Date Filed: 03/08/2016

Page: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Carlton Potts, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s determination
that Potts was ineligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
based on Amendments 750, 780, and 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. No
reversible error has been shown; we affirm.
We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions about the scope of
its authority under section 3582(c)(2). United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317,
1319 (11th Cir. 2012). We construe liberally pro se pleadings. Tannenbaum v.
United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
A district court may not reduce a defendant’s term of imprisonment unless
(1) the defendant’s sentence was based upon a guideline range that the Sentencing
Commission later lowered and (2) a reduction is consistent with the Sentencing
Commission’s applicable policy statements. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). A reduction
is inconsistent with the guidelines’ policy statements if the guidelines amendment
does not lower the defendant’s “applicable guideline range.” U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). A defendant’s “applicable guideline range” is the guideline
range determined based on a defendant’s offense level and criminal history
category before the application of departures or variances. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10,
comment. (n.1(A)).

2

Case: 15-12311

Date Filed: 03/08/2016

Page: 3 of 4

The district court lacked the authority to reduce Potts’s sentence, pursuant to
section 3582(c)(2). First, Potts was sentenced to 240 months’ imprisonment: the
statutory mandatory minimum sentence for Potts’s offense of conviction. See 21
U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). “It is well-settled that a district court is not authorized to
sentence a defendant below the statutory mandatory minimum unless the
government filed a substantial assistance motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e)
and U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 or the defendant falls within the safety-valve of 18 U.S.C. §
3553(f).” United States v. Castaing-Sosa, 530 F.3d 1358, 1360 (11th Cir. 2008).
Here, the government filed no section 3553(e) motion; and Potts was ineligible for
relief under section 3553(f). Thus, the district court lacked authority to sentence
Potts below the 240-month statutory mandatory minimum. See id. Potts is also
ineligible for relief under Amendment 780. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c)
(Amendment 780 applies only “[i]f the case involves a statutorily required
minimum sentence and the court had the authority to impose a sentence below the
statutorily required minimum sentence pursuant to a government motion.”).
Moreover, Potts’s applicable guideline range was not lowered by
Amendments 750 and 782. Based on Potts’s total offense level of 41 and criminal
history category of VI, Potts’s initial guidelines range was calculated as 360
months’ to life. Although retroactive application of Amendments 750 and 782
would reduce Potts’s base offense level, Potts’s adjusted offense level would still
3

Case: 15-12311

Date Filed: 03/08/2016

Page: 4 of 4

be 37 based on the operation of the career-offender guideline in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.
Thus, Potts’s applicable guideline range remains unchanged. That Potts was
sentenced below his guideline range based on the government’s section 5K1.1
motion does not alter his “applicable guideline range” for purposes of determining
eligibility under section 3582(c)(2). See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment, n.1(A).
The district court committed no error in concluding that Potts was ineligible for a
sentence reduction. See United States v. Hamilton, 715 F.3d 328, 337 (11th Cir.
2013) (“Where 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.”).
AFFIRMED.

4