USA v. Johnny Lee Leonard, No. 15-13157 (11th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-13157 Date Filed: 02/08/2016 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 15-13157 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:94-cr-14098-WPD-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOHNNY LEE LEONARD, a.k.a. Crow, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (February 8, 2016) Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 15-13157 Date Filed: 02/08/2016 Page: 2 of 3 Johnny Lee Leonard, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for sentence reduction. In 1995, Leonard was sentenced to life imprisonment pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) after he was convicted for various drug-related offenses. He seeks relief from this sentence under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. On appeal, Leonard argues his sentence is unlawful because, under Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), § 841(b)(1)(A) does not apply to him and, consequently, the district court erred in refusing to grant him relief. However, under the present procedural posture, Leonard cannot challenge the original sentencing court’s § 841(b)(1)(A) decision. In addition, Leonard is not otherwise eligible for relief under Amendment 782. Therefore, we affirm. 1 Section 3582(c)(2) only “permits a sentence reduction within the narrow bounds established by” the guideline amendment at issue. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 831, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2694 (2010). “In making [a § 3582(c)(2)] determination, the court shall substitute only the amendments . . . for the corresponding guideline provisions that were applied when the defendant was sentenced and shall leave all other [sentencing] decisions unaffected.” See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1); United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 782 (11th Cir. 2000). Hence, § 3582(c)(2) “does not grant to the court jurisdiction to consider 1 Leonard also appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration. We likewise affirm that denial. 2 Case: 15-13157 Date Filed: 02/08/2016 Page: 3 of 3 extraneous [non-guidelines] resentencing issues such as” whether the original sentencing court erred in applying § 841(b)(1)(A) to Leonard. See Bravo, 203 F.3d at 782. Moreover, Leonard is not otherwise eligible for relief under Amendment 782 because he “was sentenced on the basis of a mandatory minimum.” See United States v. Mills, 613 F.3d 1070, 1078 (11th Cir. 2010); United States v. Hippolyte, 712 F.3d 535, 540 (11th Cir. 2013). 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.
