United States v. Tevis Cooper, 11th Cir. (2012)
United States v. Tevis Cooper, 11th Cir. (2012)
Page: 1 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Case: 11-16106
Page: 2 of 5
Tevis Cooper, who pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute five
grams or more of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), appeals the
district courts denial of his 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of
sentence, which was based on Amendment 750. Cooper contends that, pursuant
to Freeman v. United States, __ U.S. __, 131 S.Ct. 2685, 180 L.Ed.2d 519 (2011),
the district court erred by concluding that he was ineligible for a section
3582(c)(2) reduction because of his career offender status. No reversible error has
been shown; we affirm.
We review only for abuse of discretion a district courts decision to deny
reduction of a defendants sentence pursuant to section 3582(c)(2), United States
v. Moreno, 421 F.3d 1217, 1219 (11th Cir. 2005), but we review de novo its
conclusions about the scope of its legal authority under section 3582(c)(2). United
States v. James, 548 F.3d 983, 984 (11th Cir. 2008).
In a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding, a district court may not modify a term of
imprisonment unless a defendant was sentenced based on a sentencing range that
has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. See 18 U.S.C.
3582(c)(2). The applicable policy statements provide that a sentence reduction is
not authorized under section 3582(c)(2) if the amendment does not have the
effect of lowering the defendants applicable guideline range because of the
2
Case: 11-16106
Page: 3 of 5
Case: 11-16106
Page: 4 of 5
Case: 11-16106
Page: 5 of 5
3582(c)(2) sentence reduction, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by
denying him one.*
AFFIRMED.
Cooper offers no support for his dubious argument that the district court might have quietly
rejected the career-offender enhancement at sentencing and instead imposed an above-Guidelines
sentence that was, in fact, based on the drug quantity table. His argument therefore is waived.
See United States v. Flores, 572 F.3d 1254, 1265 n.3 (11th Cir. 2009) (where a plaintiff identifies
an argument on appeal but fails to provide supporting authority or facts, we deem the argument
not briefed, and thus waived).
5