USA v. Michael David McDonald, No. 12-12878 (11th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 12-12878 Date Filed: 05/20/2013 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 12-12878 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:03-cr-00273-SDM-MAP-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MICHAEL DAVID MCDONALD, a.k.a. James Richard Brown, a.k.a. Michael David Taylor, a.k.a. Michael Palmer, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (May 20, 2013) Before CARNES, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 12-12878 Date Filed: 05/20/2013 Page: 2 of 2 Michael McDonald appeals pro se the denial of his renewed motion to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court denied McDonald s first motion to reduce on the ground that he was a career offender and ineligible for a reduction of his sentence, see United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir. 2012), and McDonald did not appeal that decision. The decision that the district court lacked authority to reduce McDonald s sentence is the law of the case, see United States v. Escobar-Urrego, 110 F.3d 1556, 1560 (11th Cir. 1997), and McDonald does not challenge that binding decision. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying McDonald s renewed motion to reduce, which duplicated the argument made in McDonald s first motion. We AFFIRM the denial of McDonald s second motion to reduce. 2

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.