USA v. Clifford Vason

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Clifford Lamar Vason. 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: 17-11378

Date Filed: 09/26/2017

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-11378
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:05-cr-00022-LC-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CLIFFORD LAMAR VASON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(September 26, 2017)
Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Clifford Vason, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his
motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). After careful review,
we affirm.

Case: 17-11378

Date Filed: 09/26/2017

Page: 2 of 3

I.
In 2005, Vason pled guilty to one count of kidnapping and transportation of
persons in interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1), and one count of
possession of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i). He was sentenced to 181-months imprisonment.
In 2017, Vason filed a motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2). He argued that an amendment to the United States Sentencing
Guidelines § 3B1.2 should allow him to receive a reduction to his guidelines
sentencing range. The district court denied his motion, ruling it was “not
authorized to reconsider a sentence relative to commentary in [§ 3B1.2].” This
appeal followed.
II.
We review de novo whether the district court has authority to reduce a
sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Melvin, 556 F.3d 1190,
1191 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). Section 3582(c)(2) allows a court to modify a
prison sentence if it was imposed “based on a sentencing range that has
subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission . . . if such a reduction
is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing
Commission.” The applicable policy statement, contained in Guidelines § 1B1.10,
allows courts to reduce prison sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) only if the

2

Case: 17-11378

Date Filed: 09/26/2017

Page: 3 of 3

guideline amendment is listed in Guidelines § 1B1.10(d). USSG § 1B1.10(a); see
United States v. Melton, 861 F.3d 1320, 1326 (11th Cir. 2017).
Vason argues that his sentence should be reduced based on Guidelines
Amendment 794, which addressed § 3B1.2. See USSG Suppl. to App. C, Amend.
794 (2015). However, Amendment 794 is not among the guideline amendments
listed in § 1B1.10(d). Therefore, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) does not allow Vason to
be resentenced based on the change to Guidelines § 3B1.2 after his sentence was
imposed. 1 See United States v. Armstrong, 347 F.3d 905, 907–08 (11th Cir. 2003).
AFFIRMED.

1

Vason also attacks his conviction for the first time on appeal based on the Supreme
Court’s opinion in Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 1240 (2014). However,
a court cannot review a conviction on a motion to reduce sentence under § 3582(c)(2). Cf.
United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 782 (11th Cir. 2000) (“Section 3582(c) . . . does not grant
to the court jurisdiction to consider extraneous resentencing issues. [The Appellant] must instead
bring . . . a collateral attack on his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.”).
3