Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Page: 1 of 4
Case: 13-12692
Page: 2 of 4
cocaine (powder) and cocaine base (crack), structuring financial transactions, and
money laundering. In 2013, Starks moved to modify his sentence pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 750 of the United States Sentencing
Guidelines (USSG). The district court denied this motion, finding that
Amendment 750 does not lower Starkss base offense level because his offense
involved 104 kilograms of cocaine base. Starks now appeals, and the government
has filed a motion for summary affirmance and a motion to stay the briefing
schedule. After careful review, we GRANT the governments motion to
summarily affirm the district courts ruling. As a result, the governments motion
to stay the briefing schedule is DENIED as moot.
Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of the essence, such
as situations where important public policy issues are involved or those where
rights delayed are rights denied, or where the position of one of the parties is
clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the
outcome of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the appeal is
frivolous. Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir.
1969). 1 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), a district court may modify a
defendants term of imprisonment where the defendant was sentenced based on a
In Bonner v. Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) the Eleventh Circuit adopted
as binding precedent the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered before October 1, 1981.
Id. at 1209.
2
Case: 13-12692
Page: 3 of 4
Case: 13-12692
Page: 4 of 4
constitute a de novo resentencing. United States v. Moreno, 421 F.3d 1217, 1220
(11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (quotation marks omitted); see U.S.S.G.
1B1.10(b)(1) (stating that courts should substitute only the amendment and
leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected). Thus, previous
factual and legal determinations from the original sentencing cannot be revisited at
this stage in the proceedings. See United States v. Cothran, 106 F.3d 1560, 1562
63 (11th Cir. 1997); United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780 (11th Cir. 2000)
(All other guideline application decisions made during the original sentencing
remain intact. (quotation marks omitted)). For these reasons, the district court
properly concluded that it lacked authority to reduce Starkss sentence pursuant to
Amendment 750.
The governments motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the
judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, and the governments motion to stay
the briefing schedule is DENIED as moot.