Filed: Nov. 08, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: Case: 12-12444 Date Filed: 11/08/2012 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 12-12444 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 2:07-cr-14072-KMM-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DERRICK TYRONE LAMB, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _ (November 8, 2012) Before TJOFL
Summary: Case: 12-12444 Date Filed: 11/08/2012 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 12-12444 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 2:07-cr-14072-KMM-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DERRICK TYRONE LAMB, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _ (November 8, 2012) Before TJOFLA..
More
Case: 12-12444 Date Filed: 11/08/2012 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-12444
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:07-cr-14072-KMM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DERRICK TYRONE LAMB,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(November 8, 2012)
Before TJOFLAT, CARNES, and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
Case: 12-12444 Date Filed: 11/08/2012 Page: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Derrick Tyrone Lamb pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of crack
cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The
presentence investigation report concluded that he was a career offender under
United States Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.1(a) (Nov. 2007). Because Lamb was
a career offender and his drug convictions carried a maximum sentence of 40 years
imprisonment, the PSR recommended a base offense level of 34. See id. §
4B1.1(b)(B). After a 3-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, see id. §
3E1.1, Lamb’s total offense level was 31. As a career offender, Lamb’s criminal
history category was VI. See id. § 4B1.1(b). The result was a guidelines range of
188 to 235 months imprisonment. Lamb did not object to the PSR, which the
district court adopted and then sentenced Lamb to 235 months imprisonment.
Lamb filed a pro se motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2), contending that Amendment 750 to the guidelines had reduced his
guidelines range. The district court denied Lamb’s motion, concluding that it
lacked authority to reduce Lamb’s sentence because he had been sentenced under
the career offender guideline. This is Lamb’s appeal.
The district court did not err in denying Lamb’s § 3582(c)(2) motion. In
United States v. Moore,
541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir. 2008), we held that
2
Case: 12-12444 Date Filed: 11/08/2012 Page: 3 of 3
“[w]here a retroactively applicable guideline amendment reduces a defendant’s
[otherwise applicable] base offense level, but does not alter the [career offender]
sentencing range upon which his or her sentence was based, § 3582(c)(2) does not
authorize a reduction in sentence.” Moore controls here. Amendment 750
retroactively reduced the base offense levels for some crack cocaine offenses, but
it did not retroactively reduce the offense level for career offenders. For that
reason, Amendment 750 did not lower Lamb’s career offender guidelines range
and the district court is not authorized to reduce his sentence under § 3582(c)(2).
See Moore, 541 F.3d at 1330; United States v. Glover,
686 F.3d 1203, 1206 (11th
Cir. 2012) (“[Section 3582(c)(2)], the Sentencing Commission’s corresponding
policy statement, and the commentary to that policy statement all make it clear that
a court cannot use an amendment to reduce a sentence in a particular case unless
that amendment actually lowers the guidelines range in that case. It is that
simple.”); see also United States v. Lawson,
686 F.3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir. 2012)
(“[T]he district court correctly denied Lawson’s § 3582(c)(2) motion because his
guideline range was not lowered by Amendment 750.”).
AFFIRMED.
3