USA v. Charles Therion Clayton, No. 15-10683 (11th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on July 18, 2016.

Download PDF

Case: 15-10683 Date Filed: 07/22/2015 Page: 1 of 4 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 15-10683 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 0:09-cr-60304-KMM-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CHARLES THERION CLAYTON, a.k.a. Charles Clayton, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (July 22, 2015) Case: 15-10683 Date Filed: 07/22/2015 Page: 2 of 4 Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JILL PRYOR, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Charles Therion Clayton is a federal prisoner who pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine. He now appeals pro se the denial of a motion for a sentence reduction, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court denied the motion: Clayton’s career-offender status precluded a sentence reduction. No reversible error has been shown; we affirm. We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions about the scope of its authority in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. United States v. James, 548 F.3d 983, 984 (11th Cir. 2008). A district court may reduce a defendant’s term of imprisonment if the defendant was sentenced based on a sentencing range that was later lowered by the Sentencing Commission and “if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1). A reduction of a defendant’s term of imprisonment is unauthorized under section 3582(c)(2) when the retroactive 2 Case: 15-10683 Date Filed: 07/22/2015 Page: 3 of 4 guideline amendment “does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). The district court committed no error in denying Clayton a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782. Amendment 782 reduced -- by two -- the base offense levels for most drug sentences calculated pursuant to the Drug Quantity Table, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). U.S.S.G. App. C, amend. 782. But Clayton was sentenced using the offense level and guideline range for career offenders in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, and not the offense level for drug quantity in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). Amendment 782 resulted in no lowering of Clayton’s guideline range; Clayton is ineligible for section 3582(c)(2) relief. See United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir. 2012). Clayton’s reliance on Freeman v. United States, 131 S.Ct. 2685 (2011), is misplaced. In Freeman, the Supreme Court considered whether defendants who entered into plea agreements recommending a particular sentence, pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1)(C), were eligible for a sentence reduction under section 3582(c)(2). Here, Clayton’s plea agreement contained no agreed-upon sentence or guidelines range. Thus, Freeman is inapplicable. Because Clayton’s guideline range remained unchanged as a result of Amendment 782, no ex post facto violation occurred. See United States v. Colon, 707 F.3d 1255, 1258-59 (11th Cir. 2013) (no ex post facto problem exists “[s]o 3 Case: 15-10683 Date Filed: 07/22/2015 Page: 4 of 4 long as the effect of post-conduct amendments to the guidelines is not to increase a defendant’s punishment beyond what it would have been without those amendments.”). And the district court committed no error in treating U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 as binding. See Dillon v. United States, 130 S.Ct. 2683 (2010). AFFIRMED. 4

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.