IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-30852

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MICHAEL K. WILLIAMS, also known as Spider Mike,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:06-CR-50127-2

Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael K. Williams appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence based on amendments to the

Sentencing Guidelines for crack cocaine offenses. Because his appeal is

foreclosed by United States v. Carter, 595 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2010), we AFFIRM.

BACKGROUND

In 2006, Williams pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to

deliver more than 50 grams or more of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 6, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-30852 Document: 00512231579 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/06/2013
No. 12-30852

841(a)(1) and 846. Williams’ guidelines sentencing range was 121 to 151 months

of imprisonment, but he was subject to a mandatory minimum term of

imprisonment of 240 months for his prior felony drug conviction. Prior to

sentencing, the Government filed a § 3553(e) motion for a sentencing reduction

for his substantial assistance to authorities. The district court granted the

motion and sentenced Williams to 132 months of imprisonment.

In 2008, Williams filed a pro se motion for a reduction of sentence under

§ 3582(c)(2) based on amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines, which lowered

the offense levels for most crack cocaine offenses. The district court denied the

motion on the basis that the court had already reduced his sentence below the

statutory minimum. On appeal, we affirmed the district court’s judgment,

noting that “when a defendant is subject to a statutory minimum sentence above

the upper end of his guideline range, even if the district court departs

downwardly from that minimum under a statutory exception, 18 U.S.C. §

3582(c)(2) provides no authority to the district court to later modify the sentence

based on amendments to the guideline range.” United States v. Williams, 373 F.

App’x 488, 489 (5th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (citing United States v. Carter, 595

F.3d 575, 581 (5th Cir. 2010)).

In 2010, after the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act (“FSA”), Williams

again moved for a sentencing reduction under § 3553(e). The district court

denied the motion, and Williams, through the Federal Public Defender, timely

appealed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review a district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence under

§ 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion. United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672

(5th Cir. 2009). 

ANALYSIS 

Section 3582(c)(2) permits the discretionary modification of a defendant’s

sentence if he “has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a

2

 Case: 12-30852 Document: 00512231579 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/06/2013
No. 12-30852

sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing

Commission” and “such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy

statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). If a

defendant is eligible for a sentence modification under § 3582(c)(2), the district

court weighs the applicable § 3553(a) factors to decide whether a reduction “is

warranted in whole or in part under the particular circumstances of the case.”

Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2692 (2010).

Where, as here, a defendant is “subject to a statutory minimum sentence

above the upper end of his guidelines range, even if the district court departs

downwardly from that minimum under a statutory exception, 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) provides no authority to the district court to later modify the

sentence based on amendments to the guideline range.” United States v. Carter,

595 F.3d 575, 581 (5th Cir. 2010); see also United States v. Anderson, 591 F.3d

789, 791 (5th Cir. 2009) (holding that a prisoner sentenced as a career offender

similarly was ineligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2)). Williams

contends that Carter is irreconcilable with Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct.

2685, 2692–95 (2011), a case in which a plurality of the Supreme Court

concluded that defendants who enter into plea agreements under Rule

11(c)(1)(C) that specify a particular sentence are eligible for relief under §

3582(c)(2). But, as we have explained previously, “Freeman did not address,

even tangentially, either of the factual scenarios presented in Carter or

Anderson”; and its reasoning does not apply to the situation presented here.

United States v. Barber, No. 12-30141, 2013 WL 1197919, at *2 (5th Cir. Mar.

25, 2013) (affirming district court’s denial of defendant’s motion for sentence

reduction on that basis that his sentence was “based on” a statutory mandatory

minimum and not on a sentencing range that subsequently has been lowered). 

CONCLUSION

Carter remains good law after Freeman, and, applied here, renders

Williams ineligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). We AFFIRM.

3

 Case: 12-30852 Document: 00512231579 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/06/2013