Case ID: f-appx_639/html/0619-01.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. Kenneth Donnell WATKINS, a.k.a. Dino Watkins, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-13274
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    April 20, 2016.
    Adam W. Overstreet, Gregory A. Bor-denkircher, Kenyen Ray Brown, Steven E. Butler, John G. Cherry, Jr., U.S. Attorney’s Office, Mobile, AL, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
    Morad Fakhimi, Carlos Alfredo Williams, Federal Defender’s Office, Mobile, AL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HULL, MARCUS,'and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Watkins, proceeding with the assistance of counsel, appeals from the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court did not err in concluding that he was ineligible for a. sentence reduction, because his below-guideline 84-month sentence — which resulted from a downward variance and not from a government motion for substantial assistance — was below his amended guideline range. Moreover, Watkins’s argument that the policy statement in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2) violates the remedial goals of Booker is foreclosed by precedent. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). For background, see United States v. Colon, 707 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir.2013).

AFFIRMED. 
      
      
         United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).