USA v. Markeith Loyd, No. 11-16079 (11th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 1 of 23 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 11-16079 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 6:98-cr-00206-GKS-KRS-3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MARKEITH LOYD, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ No. 12-10470 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:99-cr-00377-SCB-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 2 of 23 versus DERRICK BRADSHAW INGRAM, a.k.a. Chico, a.k.a. Delji Tyson, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ No. 12-10471 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:06-cr-00075-SCB-TBM-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JEREMIAH NATHAN WATERS, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ No. 12-10476 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cr-00558-SCB-TGW-1 2 Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 3 of 23 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RYAN LAWRENCE, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ No. 12-10501 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cr-00198-SCB-TGW-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus LEEOTIS WILSON, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ No. 12-10547 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:05-cr-00157-RAL-MAP-1 3 Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 4 of 23 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MICHAEL C. DEASE, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ No. 12-10570 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cr-00304-SCB-MAP-3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus GREGORY ANTHONY GOMES, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ No. 12-10690 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 6:06-cr-00187-GAP-GJK-2 4 Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 5 of 23 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus EDDIE JERALD BROOKS, a.k.a. Rod, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ No. 12-10691 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 6:08-cr-00198-GAP-GJK-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ANTWAIN DEVON MITCHELL, a.k.a. Baby Jesus, a.k.a. Water, Defendant-Appellant. 5 Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 6 of 23 ________________________ No. 12-10692 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 6:07-cr-00213-GAP-KRS-3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus TODD EDGAR WARTHEN, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ No. 12-10726 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 6:11-cr-00344-GAP-DAB-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RODERICK FINNMARK HADLEY, Defendant-Appellant. 6 Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 7 of 23 ________________________ No. 12-10804 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 6:08-cr-00269-GKS-KRS-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus NATHANIEL BARNETT, JR., a.k.a. "G", Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ No. 12-10918 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 6:08-cr-00213-GKS-DAB-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RAYNANDO GARCIA, 7 Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 8 of 23 Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ No. 12-10946 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cr-00448-VMC-TGW-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus VINCENT EDWARD UNDERWOOD, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ No. 12-10950 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cr-00399-SCB-AEP-2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus 8 Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 9 of 23 DARRYL WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ No. 12-10951 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cr-00088-SCB-EAJ-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JIMMIE LEE FORD, JR., a.k.a. Hood, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ No. 12-10952 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:08-cr-00195-SCB-MAP-2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 9 Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 10 of 23 Plaintiff-Appellee, versus FRANKIE SEGARRA, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ No. 12-10985 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:93-cr-00228-SCB-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus OMAR ANTONIO ANCHICO-MOSQUERA, a.k.a. Willie Willie, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ No. 12-11053 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:04-cr-00165-SCB-MSS-1 10 Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 11 of 23 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DARIN UNDERWOOD, a.k.a. Buck, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ No. 12-11576 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:07-cr-00365-SDM-TBM-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus TABBIEAN BELLAMY, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ No. 12-11765 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:01-cr-00253-SCB-1 11 Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 12 of 23 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL LEIGH, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ No. 12-12365 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 6:08-cr-00263-JA-GJK-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DAVID JEROME HOLLIMON, agent of Bubba, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ No. 12-12472 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ 12 Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 13 of 23 D.C. Docket No. 8:93-cr-00003-SCB-2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus GUILLERMO IBARRA-MARTINEZ, a.k.a. William Hidalgo, a.k.a. Wilson Herrera, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ No. 12-12494 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 6:08-cr-00199-JA-DAB-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus TRACY PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant. 13 Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 14 of 23 ________________________ No. 12-12498 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:04-cr-00352-SCB-MSS-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus WANDA BARTON, a.k.a. Tiny, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ No. 12-12553 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:08-cr-00124-JES-DNF-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ALVIN FREEMAN, 14 Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 15 of 23 Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ No. 12-12647 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:95-cr-00307-SCB-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CHARLES SPIGNER, JR., Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ No. 12-12648 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:07-cr-00061-JES-DNF-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, 15 Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 16 of 23 versus WILLIAM BRUCE REGAN, a.k.a. Big Man, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ No. 12-12652 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:06-cr-00127-JES-DNF-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JATHANIEL BROOKS, a.k.a. Reggie Brooks, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ No. 12-12704 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cr-00014-EAK-TBM-1 16 Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 17 of 23 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DARRELL C. LONDON, a.k.a. D, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ No. 12-13141 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:04-cr-00265-SCB-MAP-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ROSANNE ERON SIMPSON, a.k.a. Kevin Smith, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ No. 12-13222 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ 17 Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 18 of 23 D.C. Docket No. 6:11-cr-00325-CEH-GJK-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ANTWAN KNEEOR BROWNLEE, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ No. 12-13318 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 6:08-cr-00271-MSS-DAB-3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus LATAVIOUS HAZLEY, a.k.a. Tay, a.k.a. Big Mush, Defendant-Appellant. 18 Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 19 of 23 ________________________ No. 12-13446 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:05-cr-00071-VMC-DNF-14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JONATHAN E. FOSTER, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ No. 12-13621 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:08-cr-00342-VMC-EAJ-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus GREGORY ROBINSON, 19 Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 20 of 23 Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (June 28, 2013) Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, thirty-five defendants, each convicted (via a guilty plea or after trial) and sentenced for one or more crack-cocaine offenses, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), prior to August 3, 2010 the effective date of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 ( FSA ), Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372 appeal the partial grants or denials of their 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motions to reduce sentence based on Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines. In twenty-nine of the cases, the District Court denied the § 3582(c)(2) motion in full, on the ground that the defendant previously had received the minimum sentence mandated by statute. In six of the cases, the District Court granted the defendant s motion in part and reduced his sentence to the mandatory minimum prison term. In all thirty-five cases, the court denied further relief on the ground that it lacked the authority to reduce the defendant s sentence(s) below the mandatory minimum. 20 Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 21 of 23 On appeal, each defendant advances these arguments: (1) because the FSA generated Amendment 750, the FSA must be applied in conjunction with Amendment 750 in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. Therefore, because the FSA lowered the mandatory minimum prison term prescribed for defendant s conviction(s), the court was authorized to further reduce his sentence(s) and (2) the Sentencing Commission s 2011 definition of applicable guideline range in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 comment. (n.1(A)) renders defendant eligible for a sentence reduction in light of the FSA s statutory and guideline changes, which operate to lower his applicable guideline ranges. We considered and rejected these arguments in United States v. Hippolyte, 712 F.3d 535 (11th Cir. 2013), which was decided after the appeals in these cases were briefed and controls our decision here. As in these cases, Hippolyte s position [was] that both Amendment 750 and the FSA apply in [a] § 3582(c) proceeding. He advance[d] the . . . argument that one of the changes made by Amendment 759 to the Sentencing Guidelines . . . was to add a brand-new definition of applicable guideline range to U.S.S.G. 1B1.10, and that the new definition significantly change[d] the way sentencing reductions work under § 3582(c). Id., at 538. He noted that prior to Amendment 759, this court had defined the applicable guideline range as the scope of sentences available to the district court, which could be limited by a 21 Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 22 of 23 statutorily imposed mandatory minimum guideline sentence . . . but that definition [was] obsolete because the Sentencing Commission . . ., in Amendment 759, defined applicable guideline range to include only the offense level and criminal history category, and to exclude any statutory mandatory minimums. Id. at 538-39 (citation omitted). we [we]re unpersuaded that Hippolyte's interpretation of Amendment 759's new definition of applicable guideline range is correct. Amendment 759 defines the applicable guideline range as the guideline range that corresponds to the offense level and criminal history category determined pursuant to § 1B1.1(a), which is determined before consideration of any departure provision in the Guidelines Manual or any variance. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n. 1(A) (2011). Section 1B1.1(a) prescribes an eight-step procedure for determining the applicable guideline range. Steps one through five determine the defendant's offense level. Step six determines the defendant's criminal history category. Step seven directs use of the Sentencing Table to find the guideline range by cross-referencing the previously-determined offense level and criminal history category. Step eight directs use of Chapter Five Parts B through G to determine various sentencing requirements and options. Section 5G1.1(b) provides that [w]here a statutorily required minimum sentence is greater than the maximum of the applicable guideline range, the statutorily required minimum sentence shall be the guideline sentence. U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(b). Thus, when one uses § 1B1.1(a) to determine the applicable guideline range, one necessarily is required to take into account the mandatory minimum sentences that may be statutorily required. Id. at 540-541 (emphasis in original). We held that the District Court committed no error in denying Hippolyte s § 3582(c) for reduction of sentence. Section 3582(c) requires that any sentence reduction be consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. The Sentencing Guidelines explain that a reduction in 22 Case: 11-16079 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 23 of 23 the defendant's term of imprisonment is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and is not consistent with th[e] policy statement if . . .an amendment . . .is applicable to a defendant but the amendment does not have the effect of lowering the defendant's applicable guideline range because of the operation of another guideline or statutory provision ( e.g., a statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment). United States v. Glover, 686 F.3d 1203, 1206 (11th Cir.2012) (emphasis in original) (quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n. 1(A)). Amendment 750 has no effect on Hippolyte's sentence because it did not alter the statutory mandatory minimum sentence Hippolyte received. Id. at 541-42 (emphasis in original). After addressing and rejecting Hippolyte s argument the argument defendants advance here we stated that [w]e agree[d] with every other circuit to address the issue that there is no evidence that Congress intended [the FSA] to apply to defendants who had been sentenced prior to the August 3, 2010 date of the Act s enactment. Id. at 542. For the foregoing reasons, the denial of § 3582(c) relief in these cases is AFFIRMED. 23

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.