USA v. Ivory Charles Brinson, No. 13-10201 (11th Cir. 2014)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 13-10201 Date Filed: 03/19/2014 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 13-10201 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:04-cr-14027-KAM-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus IVORY CHARLES BRINSON, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (March 19, 2014) Before WILSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 13-10201 Date Filed: 03/19/2014 Page: 2 of 2 Ivory Charles Brinson appeals pro se the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence. Brinson s motion was based on Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines and the Fair Sentencing Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We affirm. Brinson s arguments are foreclosed by our precedent. We have held that defendants, like Brinson, whose sentences are based on the career offender guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, not on the drug quantity tables, id. § 2D1.1, are ineligible for a reduction of their sentence under Amendment 750. See United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir. 2012); United States v. Mills, 613 F.3d 1070, 1074 79 (11th Cir. 2010). Brinson also cannot obtain relief under the Fair Sentencing Act. The Act is not a guidelines amendment by the Sentencing Commission . . . [that can] serve as a basis for a . . . sentence reduction, and does not apply to Brinson because he was sentenced before the Act became effective on August 3, 2010. See United States v. Hippolyte, 712 F.3d 535, 542 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 181 (2013); United States v. Berry, 701 F.3d 374, 376 78 (11th Cir. 2012). The district court did not err by denying Brinson s motion. We AFFIRM the denial of Brinson 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.