USA v. Anton Watkins

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Anton Watkins. 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: 16-16730

Date Filed: 05/26/2017

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-16730
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:11-cr-60012-JIC-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANTON WATKINS,
a.k.a. Anton Twan Watkins,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(May 26, 2017)
Before HULL, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Anton Watkins, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his
motion to reduce his sentence, brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and

Case: 16-16730

Date Filed: 05/26/2017

Page: 2 of 3

Amendment 599 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court found that
Watkins was not entitled to relief because the amendment was already in effect
when Watkins was sentenced and, thus, he received whatever benefit may have
been afforded by the amendment. On appeal, Watkins argues that he is entitled to
relief under Amendment 599, which directs that a weapons enhancement may not
be applied to an underlying offense when the defendant has also received an 18
U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction, which provides separate punishment for the use or
possession of a firearm in a violent crime.
We review de novo a district court’s legal conclusions regarding the scope of
its authority under the Sentencing Guidelines in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. United
States v. Davis, 587 F.3d 1300, 1303 (11th Cir. 2009). Under § 3582(c)(2), a
district court may reduce the prison sentence of a “defendant who has been
sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has
subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1).
Amendment 599 may serve, when applicable, as the basis for a sentence
reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d). Amendment 599 took effect on November
1, 2000. U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 599. Amendment 599 provides, in pertinent
part, that where a defendant is convicted of an 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) offense for using
a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime,
2

Case: 16-16730

Date Filed: 05/26/2017

Page: 3 of 3

the defendant cannot also receive an offense-level enhancement in the underlying
offense for his use of a firearm during the commission of that offense. Id.; see also
United States v. Brown, 332 F.3d 1341, 1344–45 (11th Cir. 2003).
We affirm the district court’s denial of Watkins’s § 3582(c)(2) motion
because Amendment 599 does not apply to his guideline calculation and does not
have the effect of lowering his guideline range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
Amendment 599 took effect in November 2000, ten years before Watkins was
sentenced in July 2011. See U.S.S.G. App. C., Amend. 599. Thus, Watkins was
not “sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has
been subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2).
Accordingly, the district court correctly concluded that Watkins was
ineligible for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 599, and we affirm.
AFFIRMED.

3