USA v. Jessie Morrison

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-11712
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:06-cr-60136-JAL-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JESSIE MORRISON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(January 5, 2016)
Before MARCUS, JORDAN and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jessie Morrison appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to
reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). On appeal, he argues that
the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion by not considering the
Case: 15-11712 Date Filed: 01/05/2016 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and by counting his prior convictions against him
twice. After thorough review, we affirm.
We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions regarding the scope
of its authority under the Sentencing Guidelines in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding.
United States v. Anderson, 772 F.3d 662, 666 (11th Cir. 2014). A district court has
discretion to reduce an imprisonment term if a defendant’s sentence is based on a
sentencing range that was later lowered by the Sentencing Commission. See 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
To obtain a reduction in a term of imprisonment based on an amendment to
the Sentencing Guidelines, the relevant amendment must be listed in U.S.S.G. §
1B1.10(d). U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1). Because it is listed in § 1B1.10(d),
Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines may serve as the basis for a sentence
reduction. Id. § 1B1.10(d). Amendment 782 reduced by two levels the base
offense levels that apply to most drug offenses under §§ 2D1.1 and 2D1.11.
U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 782 (2014). Section 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a
resentencing; rather, it permits a sentence reduction within the narrow bounds
established by the Sentencing Commission. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817,
831 (2010).
Here, Morrison’s base offense level was determined by the application of §
4B1.1, which was not revised by Amendment 782. Because Morrison’s base level
Case: 15-11712 Date Filed: 01/05/2016 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
was not determined by a section effected by Amendment 782, that amendment
does not lower his guideline range. Accordingly, he is not eligible for a sentence
reduction based on that amendment, and the district court correctly determined that
it did not have the authority to reduce his sentence under § 3582(c)(2).
Furthermore, § 3582 does not authorize a resentencing, or allow this Court to
review whether Morrison was sentenced as a career offender in error. See Dillon,
560 U.S. at 831.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 15-11712 Date Filed: 01/05/2016 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --