USA v. Billy Cleveland, No. 14-15296 (11th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-15296 Date Filed: 06/15/2015 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 14-15296 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 0:01-cr-06242-WPD-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus BILLY CLEVELAND, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (June 15, 2015) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 14-15296 Date Filed: 06/15/2015 Page: 2 of 2 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. 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.
