USA v. Jermaine Mathis, No. 12-10076 (11th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-10076 Date Filed: 01/29/2013 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 12-10076 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 4:99-cr-10035-KMM-3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JERMAINE MATHIS, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (January 29, 2013) Before WILSON, MARTIN and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 12-10076 Date Filed: 01/29/2013 Page: 2 of 3 Jermaine Mathis appeals the district court s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Mathis was sentenced as a career offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. On appeal, he concedes the limited scope of § 3582(c)(2) proceedings, but urges this Court to review the drug quantity findings at sentencing in the interest of justice.1 [W]e review de novo the district court s legal conclusions regarding the scope of its authority under the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1326 (11th Cir. 2008). A district court may not reduce a defendant s term of imprisonment unless the defendant s sentence was based upon a sentencing range that the Sentencing Commission subsequently lowered, the district court considers the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and the reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Mathis s sentence was based on his career-offender enhancement, and Amendment 750 therefore had no effect on his sentencing range under § 4B1.1. See Moore, 541 F.3d at 1327 (holding that when a defendant is sentenced as a 1 Mathis requests that, in the alternative to granting a sentence reduction, this Court reopen his prior 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, which was denied in 2007. Mathis may not use his § 3582(c)(2) motion to reopen his § 2255 motion to vacate. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). 2 Case: 12-10076 Date Filed: 01/29/2013 Page: 3 of 3 career offender, the sentence is based on the guideline ranges applicable to career offenders under § 4B1.1, not the levels set forth in § 2D1.1). Moreover, the district court was not permitted to change any of the original sentencing calculations in the § 3582(c)(2) proceedings except those affected by a retroactive guideline amendment. See United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 781 (11th Cir. 2000). Therefore, Mathis is ineligible for relief under § 3582(c)(2), and the district court did not err in denying his motion. AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
