United States v. Mario Anton Lee

Opinion

Case: 19-12392 Date Filed: 09/10/2020 Page: 1 of 2

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _____________________ No. 19-12392 Non-Argument Calendar _____________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:00-cr-00347-LSC-JHE-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARIO ANTON LEE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama _____________________

(September 10, 2020)

Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Case: 19-12392 Date Filed: 09/10/2020 Page: 2 of 2

Mario Lee, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s order granting

his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on

Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.

The district court concluded that Amendment 782 made Mr. Lee – who was

originally sentenced to 105 years in prison – eligible for a sentence reduction, and

that his amended guideline range was 360 months to life imprisonment. The district

court granted the § 3582(c) motion and sentenced Mr. Lee to 360 months in prison.

The arguments Mr. Lee presents on appeal – which were not raised below and

are subject to plain-error review – are foreclosed by binding precedent. First, Mr.

Lee argues that he should have had a hearing, but a district court is not required to

hold a hearing on a § 3582(c) motion. See United States v. Caraballo-Martinez, 866

F.3d 1233, 1249 (11th Cir. 2017). Second, Mr. Lee seeks to attack his conviction

and prior sentencing determinations, but such challenges are not cognizable through

a § 3582(c) motion. See United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780 (11th Cir. 2000);

United States v. Fair, 326 F.3d 1317, 1318 (11th Cir. 2003).*

AFFIRMED.

_________ *We deny Mr. Lee’s request to recall the mandate in his 2002 criminal appeal, and motion for oral argument. We grant Mr. Lee’s motion to amend the reply brief.