USA v. Travis Little

Filing

OPINION filed : AFFIRMED. Decision not for publication. Karen Nelson Moore, Jeffrey S. Sutton, and Arthur L. Alarc n, The Honorable Arthur L. Alarc n, Senior Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.

Case: 13-5167

Document: 40-2

Filed: 07/07/2014

Page: 1

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 14a0488n.06
Case No. 13-5167

FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TRAVIS LITTLE,
Defendant-Appellant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Jul 07, 2014
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
KENTUCKY

BEFORE: MOORE, SUTTON and ALARCÓN, Circuit Judges. 

SUTTON, Circuit Judge. Travis Little pleaded guilty to possessing around 20 grams of
crack cocaine, and in February 2008, the district court sentenced him to serve five years in prison
for that offense—the statutory minimum sentence at the time—on top of five years for a related
firearms charge. Two years later, Congress eliminated the statutory minimum for Little’s crackcocaine offense in the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. Little sought to take advantage of the
change by requesting a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) in district court, but to
no avail. He now presses his claim for relief under § 3582(c)(2) on appeal.



The Honorable Arthur L. Alarcón, Senior Circuit Judge of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.

Case: 13-5167

Document: 40-2

Filed: 07/07/2014

Page: 2

Case No. 13-5167
United States v. Little
While Little’s appeal was pending, our court decided United States v. Blewett, 746 F.3d
647 (6th Cir. 2013) (en banc).

Unfortunately for Little, this decision forecloses all three

arguments he presses on appeal: that the Fair Sentencing Act applies retroactively to defendants
sentenced before its passage; that denying Little a sentence reduction violates the Equal
Protection Clause; and that Little’s sentence violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition
against cruel and unusual punishment. Id. at 650–60. Little recognizes that Blewett binds this
panel and dictates affirmance. He wishes only to preserve these arguments for review by a
higher tribunal, as he is entitled to do.
For these reasons, we affirm.

2