USA v. James Withrow

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant James Thomas Withrow. 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: 15-12869

Date Filed: 04/12/2016

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-12869
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:08-cr-80034-DTKH-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAMES THOMAS WITHROW,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 12, 2016)
Before WILSON, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 15-12869

Date Filed: 04/12/2016

Page: 2 of 3

James Thomas Withrow, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s
partial denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction. In
2009, Withrow was convicted and sentenced for conspiring with intent to distribute
around 70 grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. He was
sentenced to a term of imprisonment above the statutory mandatory minimum for
his offense, which at that time was 120 months’ imprisonment under 21 U.S.C. §
841(b)(1). In 2010, the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) decreased the statutory
mandatory minimum for offenses like Withrow’s to 60 months’ imprisonment.
See Pub.L. No. 111–220, 124 Stat. 2372; 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1). Subsequently,
Withrow filed his present motion for a sentence reduction, seeking relief based on
Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court found Withrow
eligible for relief under Amendment 782, but the court concluded that it could not
lower his sentence below the relevant statutory mandatory minimum on a § 3582
motion.1 Finding that the pre-FSA 120-month minimum applies to Withrow, the
court only reduced his sentence to 120 months’ imprisonment.
On appeal, Withrow solely asserts that the district court erred by relying on
the 120-month statutory mandatory minimum rather than the 60-month minimum
currently in effect. However, this argument is unavailing. The FSA does not apply
1

This determination was proper—§ 3582 does not authorize courts to reduce a
defendant’s sentence below the applicable statutory mandatory minimum prison term. See
United States v. Hippolyte, 712 F.3d 535, 540 (11th Cir. 2013); United States v. Berry, 701 F.3d
374, 376 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam).
2

Case: 15-12869

Date Filed: 04/12/2016

Page: 3 of 3

retroactively to Withrow. See Hippolyte, 712 F.3d at 542; Berry, 701 F.3d at 377.
Because the FSA does not apply to Withrow’s case, the statutory mandatory
minimum that does is the one that was in place when Withrow was sentenced in
2009. See Hippolyte, 712 F.3d at 542. Accordingly, the district court did not err in
relying on the 120-month minimum when considering Withrow’s § 3582 motion.
AFFIRMED.

3