Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 09-14087
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 04-00034-CR-4-RH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL LEVON HILLS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(March 30, 2010)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
and is not authorized if the retroactive amendment does not have the effect of
lowering the defendants applicable guideline range. U.S.S.G. 1B1.10(a)(2)(B).
Amendment 706, which applies retroactively, amends the Drug Quantity
Table in U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(c) to provide a two-level reduction in base offense
levels for crack cocaine offenses. United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1325
(11th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, McFadden v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 965, and cert.
denied, 129 S. Ct. 1601 (2009). However, a defendant who was originally
sentenced based on a statutory minimum is not eligible for relief under
Amendment 706. See United States v. Williams, 549 F.3d 1337, 1342 (11th Cir.
2008) (per curiam). Furthermore, this Court has held that Booker and Kimbrough
are not applicable to 3582(c)(2) proceedings. United States v. Melvin, 556 F.3d
1190, 119293 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2382 (2009).
We have also recognized that proceedings under 3582(c)(2) do not
constitute de novo resentencings. United States v. Moreno, 421 F.3d 1217, 1220
(11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (citation omitted). Therefore, 3582(c)(2) does not
grant to the court jurisdiction to consider extraneous resentencing issues. United
States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 782 (11th Cir. 2000). As such, we cannot review
Hillss arguments concerning the constitutionality of mandatory-minimum
sentencing, or the courts imposition of a ten-year mandatory-minimum sentence