Page 1 of 3

Case No. 5:02cr38-RH

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 5:02cr38-RH

CHARLES BYNUM,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER DENYING A SENTENCE

REDUCTION UNDER AMENDMENT 782

The defendant Charles Bynum has moved to reduce his sentence under 

United States Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782. But Mr. Bynum received 

the minimum mandatory sentence. And even aside from the minimum mandatory, 

Mr. Bynum was a career offender. His sentence was not affected by the drug 

guideline that was reduced by Amendment 782. He is not eligible for a reduction. 

This order denies relief.

The Sentencing Guidelines establish a guideline range for each defendant. 

The range is based on the defendant’s “total offense level” and “criminal history 

category.” The total offense level is based on the defendant’s “base offense level” 

Case 5:02-cr-00038-RH-GRJ Document 166 Filed 01/09/17 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Case No. 5:02cr38-RH

with increases or decreases based on specific offense characteristics. For drug 

offenses, the base offense level ordinarily turns on the type and quantity of drugs 

properly attributed to the defendant. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 

(“Guidelines Manual”) § 2D1.1 (2016). But a minimum mandatory takes priority 

over the guidelines; when a minimum mandatory is higher than the otherwiseapplicable guideline range, the minimum mandatory becomes the guideline 

sentence. 

A defendant who received the minimum mandatory sentence is not eligible 

for a reduction under Amendment 782. See Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10, cmt. 

n.1(A); see also United States v. Berry, 701 F.3d 374, 376 (11th Cir. 2012); United 

States v. Glover, 686 F.3d 1203, 1207-1208 (11th Cir. 2012).

Had Mr. Bynum not been subject to the minimum mandatory, he still would 

not be eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782. The amendment 

reduced the base offense level for most drug offenses. The amendment did not, 

however, affect the separate career-offender offense level. Mr. Bynum was a career 

offender. The offense level of a career offender was and still is determined under a 

wholly separate guideline. A district court may reduce the sentence of a defendant 

“who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range 

that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 

3582(c)(2) (emphasis added). But a district court must not reduce the sentence of a 

Case 5:02-cr-00038-RH-GRJ Document 166 Filed 01/09/17 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Case No. 5:02cr38-RH

defendant whose range has not been lowered. Because the career-offender 

guideline range has not been changed, Mr. Bynum is not eligible for a reduction. 

The Eleventh Circuit squarely so held in addressing indistinguishable prior 

guideline amendments. See United States v. Berry, 701 F.3d 374, 376 (11th Cir. 

2012) (Amendment 750); United States v. Moore, 541 F. 3d 1323, 1327 (11th Cir. 

2008) (Amendment 706). See also United States v. Allen, 623 F. App’x 529, 530 

(11th Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (“[The defendant] was not eligible for a reduction 

in sentence because Amendment 782 did not have the effect of reducing his 

sentence range under the Guidelines due to his status as a career offender and the 

operation of § 4B1.1.”). 

This order does not affect Mr. Bynum’s presidential commutation.

For these reasons, 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The motion to reduce the sentence, ECF No. 161, is denied.

2. The clerk must provide a copy of this order to Mr. Bynum himself by mail 

and to the attorneys of record and the Federal Public Defender through the 

electronic filing system.

SO ORDERED on January 9, 2017.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 5:02-cr-00038-RH-GRJ Document 166 Filed 01/09/17 Page 3 of 3