USA v. Norris Lundy, No. 12-14351 (11th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-14351 Date Filed: 04/09/2013 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 12-14351 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cr-20632-KMM-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus NORRIS LUNDY, a.k.a. Polo, Defendant - Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (April 9, 2013) Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 12-14351 Date Filed: 04/09/2013 Page: 2 of 3 Norris Lundy, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, appeals the district court s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction, pursuant to Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines. On appeal, Lundy asserts that he is eligible for a sentence reduction because the district court based his sentence on a framework that Amendment 750 retroactively changed. We review de novo a district court s legal conclusions regarding the scope of its authority under the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1326 (11th Cir. 2008). In liberally construing pro se pleadings, we hold pro se litigants to a less stringent standard. Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008). We have held that § 3582(c)(2) only provides a district court with the discretion to reduce a sentence that was based on a sentencing range that has been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. See Moore, 541 F.3d at 1327. Section 3582(c)(2) does not provide a basis for a de novo resentencing. United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 781 (11th Cir. 2000). If a defendant is a career offender, his base offense level is generally determined under the career-offender guideline in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 and not the drug-quantity guideline in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. See Moore, 541 F.3d at 1327 28. As such, a retroactive amendment to the drug quantity table at § 2D1.1 does not have the effect of lowering the career-offender- 2 Case: 12-14351 Date Filed: 04/09/2013 Page: 3 of 3 based guideline range within the meaning of § 3582(c)(2), and the district courts are not authorized to reduce a sentence on that basis. See id. The district court properly denied Lundy s § 3582(c)(2) request because he was sentenced as a career offender. Amendment 750 did not lower his applicable guideline range. AFFIRMED. 3
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.
