Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-12912/USCOURTS-ca11-15-12912-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Duane Miller
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-12912

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:08-cr-20896-MGC-4

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

DUANE MILLER, 

a.k.a. D,

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(February 3, 2016)

Before WILSON, JORDAN and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 15-12912 Date Filed: 02/03/2016 Page: 1 of 3
2

Duane Miller, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for sentence reduction. Miller asserts the district court 

erred in denying his motion because: (1) he is entitled to a sentence reduction 

under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines and (2) his sentence should be 

lowered based on the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA). Both arguments fail. 

Accordingly, we affirm.

First, Miller is not eligible for relief under Amendment 782. Section 

3582(c)(2) authorizes a sentence reduction if the relevant Guidelines amendment

has “the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable [G]uideline[s] range.” 

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). However, a defendant is barred from § 3582(c)(2) 

relief, “even when an amendment would lower the defendant’s otherwiseapplicable Guidelines sentencing range, when the defendant 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). 

Here, the original sentencing court imposed the relevant statutory mandatory 

minimum sentence on Miller. Therefore, Miller is not entitled to relief under 

Amendment 782. See Mills, 613 F.3d at 1078; Hippolyte, 712 F.3d at 540.

Second, under the present procedural posture, Miller cannot challenge his 

sentence based on the FSA. The “FSA is not a [G]uidelines amendment . . . but 

rather a statutory change by Congress, and thus it does not serve as a basis for a § 

USCA11 Case: 15-12912 Date Filed: 02/03/2016 Page: 2 of 3
3

3582(c)(2) sentence reduction.”1 United States v. Berry, 701 F.3d 374, 377 (11th 

Cir. 2012) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

 1 Miller also challenges his status as a “career offender” under the Guidelines. However, 

as with his FSA claim, Miller cannot raise such a challenge here. Section 3582(c)(2) only 

“permits a sentence reduction within the narrow bounds established by” the Guidelines

amendments 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 guideline application decisions unaffected.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1) 

(emphasis added). The only amendment raised by Miller, Amendment 782, does not affect any 

of the Guidelines’ career offender provisions. See U.S.S.G. App. C, amend. 782. As such, 

Miller’s status as a career offender is “outside the scope of the proceeding authorized by § 

3582(c)(2).” See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 831, 130 S. Ct. at 2694.

USCA11 Case: 15-12912 Date Filed: 02/03/2016 Page: 3 of 3