‘Wingfield’s arguments are foreclosed by our precedent. A defendant sentenced as a career offender, whose guideline range was not based on the offense level for crack cocaine, is ineligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2).”
How later courts described this case
- ‘Wingfield’s arguments are foreclosed by our precedent. A defendant sentenced as a career offender, whose guideline range was not based on the offense level for crack cocaine, is ineligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2).”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 11-15899 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar APRIL 24, 2012
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 9:08-cr-80115-DTKH-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KENNETH WINGFIELD, JR.,
a.k.a. Kenny,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 24, 2012)
Before BARKETT, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Wingfield, Jr., a prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from the
district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to modify his term of
imprisonment. After review, we affirm.
Wingfield pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute five or
more grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and one count of
possession with intent to distribute five or more grams of crack cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Because he had at least two prior felony
controlled-substance convictions, Wingfield’s presentence investigation report
applied the career offender guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b). As a career offender,
and based on the total amount of crack cocaine for the offenses, Wingfield received
a base offense level of 34. After a three-level reduction for acceptance of
responsibility, Wingfield’s guideline range was 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment.
At Wingfield’s sentencing, the government stated that it would not object to
a reasonable variance in Wingfield’s sentence based on the Department of Justice’s
recent position that sentences for crack and powder cocaine offenses should be
equivalent. Had Wingfield been convicted of a powder cocaine offense, his
guideline range would have been 151 to 188 months’ imprisonment. The district
court accordingly sentenced Wingfield to 151 months’ imprisonment.
In 2011, Wingfield filed a pro se motion to reduce his sentence under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on retroactive amendments to the guidelines that
2
lowered the base offense level for crack cocaine offenses.1 The district court
denied the motion, determining that Wingfield was ineligible for a reduction
because he was sentenced as a career offender. Wingfield now appeals.
We review de novo a district court’s legal conclusions about the scope of its
authority under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1326 (11th
Cir. 2008). Under § 3582(c)(2), a district court may modify a term of
imprisonment “in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of
imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by
the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
Wingfield’s arguments are foreclosed by our precedent. A defendant
sentenced as a career offender, whose guideline range was not based on the offense
level for crack cocaine, is ineligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2). Moore,
541 F.3d at 1327 (holding that, when a defendant was sentenced as a career
offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, that defendant’s base offense level for his crack
cocaine offense did not play a role in the calculation of the guideline range and the
amendments did not lower the applicable guideline ranges). Moreover, United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), is inapplicable to § 3582(c)(2) motions, so
1
Wingfield also contended that his post-sentencing rehabilitation warranted a reduction
under § 3582(c)(2), but the district court found that argument meritless. Wingfield does not
challenge this ruling on appeal; he has accordingly abandoned his assertion. United States v.
Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998).
3
Wingfield’s argument that the district court had the discretion to modify his
sentence under that section, despite his career offender status, is without merit.
Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2693 (2010).
AFFIRMED.
4