Case ID: f-appx_402/html/0485-01.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. Minnie Pearl THOMAS, a.k.a. Nick, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-12004
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Nov. 10, 2010.
    
      Minnie Pearl Thomas, Tallahassee, FL, pro se.
    Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and CARNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Minnie Pearl Thomas, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of her motion for a reduction of sentence. Thomas was convicted for one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and one count of distribution of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court sentenced Pearl to two mandatory life sentences as a career-offender. She sought a reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 706, which provides a two-level reduction in the base offense levels applicable to crack cocaine offenses. After review, we affirm Thomas’ sentence.

Sentences based on career-offender status or on a statutory minimum are not based on a range that has “subsequently been lowered” within the meaning of § 3582(c)(2), and district courts are not authorized to reduce a sentence under that statute. See United States v. Williams, 549 F.3d 1337, 1339 (11th Cir.2008); United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1327-28 (11th Cir.2008). Thomas concedes she was sentenced as a career offender, and her prior convictions for drug offenses resulted in mandatory minimum life sentences. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 851. Consequently, any adjustment to her advisory guideline range would not affect the length of her prison terms and she is ineligible for a sentence reduction.

AFFIRMED. 
      
      . We review de novo a district court's conclusions about the scope of its legal authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1326 (11th Cir.2008).