USA v. Rodney Graham


Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Rodney Graham. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link

Download PDF
Case: 16-16234 Date Filed: 06/29/2017 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 16-16234 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 0:11-cr-60225-DTKH-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RODNEY GRAHAM, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (June 29, 2017) Before MARTIN, ANDERSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 16-16234 Date Filed: 06/29/2017 Page: 2 of 3 Rodney Graham, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction. On appeal, Graham argues that he is eligible for a sentence reduction because the district court varied downward below the career-offender range, and thus, his sentence was based on § 2D1.1 of the Guidelines rather than the career-offender designation. As a result, Graham asserts, when Amendment 782 lowered the ranges in § 2D1.1, he became entitled to a sentence reduction. Graham also contends Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (2011) permits the district court to reduce his sentence. After review,1 we affirm. As Graham accurately observes, Amendment 782 reduced by two levels the base offense levels that apply to most drug offenses in § 2D1.1. See U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 782. According to § 3582(c)(2), a district court may reduce a defendant’s term of imprisonment if the defendant’s sentence was based upon a Guideline range that the Sentencing Commission subsequently lowered. However, as the district court recognized, Graham’s Guidelines range would not have been lowered by Amendment 782 because his sentence was determined based on his career-offender status, which the Amendment did not change. We have precedent directly on point that supports the district court’s conclusion. United States v. 1 We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions regarding the scope of its authority under § 3582(c)(2) and for clear error the factual findings underlying those legal conclusions. United States v. Davis, 587 F.3d 1300, 1303 (11th Cir. 2009). 2 Case: 16-16234 Date Filed: 06/29/2017 Page: 3 of 3 Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1327 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding that where an amendment to the Guidelines reduced the defendant’s base offense level but the defendant’s total offense level was unchanged before and after the amendment as a result of the career-offender Guideline, § 3582(c)(2) relief was unavailable). And contrary to Graham’s suggestion, that precedent remains intact after Freeman. United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir. 2012) (“Moore remains binding precedent because it has not been overruled.”). Accordingly, Graham is not entitled to relief pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). AFFIRMED. 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?