USA v. Efrem Stutson

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-11491
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:93-cr-00152-LSC-PWG-11
UNITED STATES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EFREM STUTSON,
a.k.a Cooky,
Defendant-Appellant.
___________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
____________________________
(May 3, 2013)
Before WILSON, JORDAN, and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Efrem Stutson appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a
reduction of sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2). For the reasons which follow,
Case: 12-11491 Date Filed: 05/03/2013 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
we affirm.
In 1994, a jury found Mr. Stutson guilty of conspiring to possess cocaine,
cocaine base, marijuana, and PCP with the intent to distribute. See 21 U.S.C. §§
846, 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(A). Because Mr. Stutson had three prior felony drug
convictions, and because the government had filed a notice of intent to seek an
enhanced penalty, see 21 U.S.C. § 851, the district court sentenced him in 1998
(following a remand from this court) to a statutory minimum term of life
imprisonment. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).
In 2011, Mr. Stutson filed the § 3582(c)(2) motion that is the subject of this
appeal. In that motion, he sought a sentence reduction based on Amendment 750
to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court denied the motion, concluding that
Amendment 750 did not change Mr. Stutson’s statutory minimum term of life
imprisonment.
The arguments Mr. Stutson makes in favor of reversal are foreclosed by our
precedent. First, we have held several times that a § 3582(c)(2) motion is properly
denied where – as here – the defendant was sentenced to a statutory minimum term
of imprisonment. See, e.g., United States v. Williams, 549 F.3d 1337, 1341 (11 th
Cir. 2008); United States v. Mills, 613 F.2d 1070, 1077-78 (11 th Cir. 2010); United
States v. Glover, 686 F.3d 1203, 1206-07 (11th Cir. 2012). Second, as we
explained in United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317, 1320-21 (11 th Cir. 2012), the
Case: 12-11491 Date Filed: 05/03/2013 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Freeman, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (2011), did
not abrogate our prior cases holding that a § 3582(c)(2) reduction is unavailable to
narcotics defendants whose sentence is not based on USSG § 2B1.1. Third, a §
3582(c)(2) motion cannot be used to revisit findings and rulings made at the
original sentencing hearing. See United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 781 (11 th
Cir. 2000). Fourth, our recent decision in United States v. Hyppolyte, ___ F.3d
___, 2013 WL 978695, *4 - *5 (11 th Cir. March 14, 2013), holds that (a) the new
definition of “applicable guideline range” in Amendment 759 does not provide §
3582(c)(2) relief for defendants who received statutory minimum terms of
imprisonment, and (2) the Fair Sentencing Act does not apply retroactively in a §
3582(c)(2) proceeding to defendants sentenced before the Act’s effective date.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 12-11491 Date Filed: 05/03/2013 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --