USA v. Travis Little, No. 13-5167 (6th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 14a0488n.06 Case No. 13-5167 FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TRAVIS LITTLE, Defendant-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Jul 07, 2014 DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY BEFORE: MOORE, SUTTON and ALARCÃ N, Circuit Judges. ï ª SUTTON, Circuit Judge. Travis Little pleaded guilty to possessing around 20 grams of crack cocaine, and in February 2008, the district court sentenced him to serve five years in prison for that offense the statutory minimum sentence at the time on top of five years for a related firearms charge. Two years later, Congress eliminated the statutory minimum for Little s crackcocaine offense in the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. Little sought to take advantage of the change by requesting a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) in district court, but to no avail. He now presses his claim for relief under § 3582(c)(2) on appeal. ï ª The Honorable Arthur L. AlarcÃ³n, Senior Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation. Case No. 13-5167 United States v. Little While Little s appeal was pending, our court decided United States v. Blewett, 746 F.3d 647 (6th Cir. 2013) (en banc). Unfortunately for Little, this decision forecloses all three arguments he presses on appeal: that the Fair Sentencing Act applies retroactively to defendants sentenced before its passage; that denying Little a sentence reduction violates the Equal Protection Clause; and that Little s sentence violates the Eighth Amendment s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Id. at 650 60. Little recognizes that Blewett binds this panel and dictates affirmance. He wishes only to preserve these arguments for review by a higher tribunal, as he is entitled to do. For these reasons, we affirm. 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.