United States v. Billy Cleveland

608 F. App'x 889
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit·Decided June 15, 2015·No. 14-15296·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Billy Cleveland appeals pro se the denial of his motion for a sentence reduction. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Cleveland based his motion on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.

The district court did not err when it denied Cleveland’s motion for a reduction of his sentence. Cleveland, whose sentence is based on the career offender guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, not on the drug quantity tables, id. § 2D1.1, is ineligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782. See United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir.2012); United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1327-30 (11th Cir.2008). Cleveland challenges his classification as a career offender, but that challenge is outside the limited scope of section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780-81 (11th Cir.2000).

We AFFIRM the denial of Cleveland’s motion to reduce.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Billy Cleveland, 608 F. App'x 889 (11th Cir. 2015).

608 F. App'x 889 (United States v. Billy Cleveland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Bravo
203 F.3d 778 (Eleventh Circuit, 2000)
United States v. Moore
541 F.3d 1323 (Eleventh Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Sedrick Lawson
686 F.3d 1317 (Eleventh Circuit, 2012)