Case ID: f-appx_519/html/0667-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael David McDONALD, a.k.a. James Richard Brown, a.k.a. Michael David Taylor, a.k.a. Michael Palmer, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-12878
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    May 20, 2013.
    Peter J. Sholl, Robert E. O’Neill, Yvette Rhodes, Joseph K. Ruddy, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Michael David Mcdonald, Coleman, FL, pro se.
    Before CARNES, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Michael McDonald appeals pro se the denial of his renewed motion to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court denied McDonald’s first motion to reduce on the ground that he was a career offender and ineligible for a reduction of his sentence, see United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir.2012), and McDonald did not appeal that decision. The decision that the district court lacked authority to reduce McDonald’s sentence is the law of the case, see United States v. Escobar-Urrego, 110 F.3d 1556, 1560 (11th Cir.1997), and McDonald does not challenge that binding decision. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying McDonald’s renewed motion to reduce, which duplicated the argument made in McDonald’s first motion.

We AFFIRM the denial of McDonald’s second motion to reduce.