USA v. James A. McGee, No. 15-11716 (11th Cir. 2015)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-11716 Date Filed: 12/02/2015 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 15-11716 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 0:93-cr-06104-DTKH-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JAMES A. MCGEE, a.k.a. James Allen McGee, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (December 2, 2015) Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 15-11716 Date Filed: 12/02/2015 Page: 2 of 2 James McGee appeals the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). McGee sought a reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied McGee’s motion because Amendment 782 did not alter his sentencing range. At sentencing, the district court found, over McGee’s objection, that he was responsible for 17,593 grams of ephedrine that could be used to produce 16.18 kilograms of pure methamphetamine. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(3)(C)(1). Based on that drug quantity, McGee was ineligible for a sentence reduction because his base offense level remained unchanged. Id. § 2D1.1(c)(1) (assigning a base offense level of 38 for cases involving 4.5 kilograms or more of methamphetamine). McGee argues that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to challenge the amount of methamphetamine attributed to him, but the district court could not disturb its earlier finding about drug quantity when considering McGee’s motion to reduce. See United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780 (11th Cir. 2000). Because McGee was ineligible for a reduction of his sentence, the district court lacked the authority to consider the statutory sentencing factors or to exercise its discretion to impose a new sentence. Id. at 781. We AFFIRM the denial of McGee’s motion to reduce his sentence. 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.