Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
11-15632•USA v. Michael Deangelo Griffin
11-15632Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit24.05.2012
FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 24, 2012
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-15632
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:05-cr-00458-IPJ-PWG-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL DEANGELO GRIFFIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(May 24, 2012)
Before MARCUS, MARTIN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Griffin, proceeding pro se, appeals the denial of his motion for a
-- 1 of 2 --
sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). On June 15, 2006, Griffin was
sentenced to sixty-three months imprisonment for one count of possession of
cocaine base with intent to distribute. On March 6, 2009, that sentence was
reduced to the statutory mandatory minimum of sixty months imprisonment. On
August 22, 2011, Griffin filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), seeking a
further reduction in his sentence. On November 10, 2011, the district court denied
that motion.
On appeal, Griffin argues that a reduction in his sentence is warranted in
light of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Our precedent, however,
makes it clear that a defendant cannot obtain a sentence reduction under Section
3582(c)(2) if his sentence is already at the statutory mandatory minimum. See
United States v. Mills, 613 F.3d 1070, 1077–78 (11th Cir. 2010). Griffin also
asserts that the district court should have granted his Section 3582(c)(2) motion by
affording him safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). Our precedent also
forecloses this suggestion. See United States v. Jackson, 613 F.3d 1305, 1308
(11th Cir. 2010) (holding that “the safety-valve is inapplicable to sentence-
modification proceedings” under Section 3582(c)(2)).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
AFFIRMED.
2
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.