NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Na me: 12a0451n.06 No. 10-4414 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,
v. ANDRE B ADL EY, Def endant- Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE N ORTHERN DI STRI CT OF OH I O

BEF ORE: BOG GS, SUHRHEI NRI CH, and COOK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURI AM. Andre Ba dley , a fede ral prisoner, appea ls a district court judgme nt denying his moti on to reduc e his sentenc e, filed pur suant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

. At ag e nineteen, Ba dley was convicted in state court of three drug crimes. He was sentenc ed to a total of one y ear of imprisonment for those crimes. At the ag e of twenty -one, Ba dley committed the fede ral off

enses f or which he is curre ntly

imprisoned: possession with int ent to distribute 115 g rams of c ocaine base a

nd possession with intent to distribute less than 500 g rams of coca ine. He

was convicted following a 1997 jury t ri al

. Be cause Ba dley possessed more than fifty g rams of

coca ine base, and had two previous felony drug convictions, he was subject to a mandatory sentenc e of life imprisonment without parole. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1). More than ten y ear s later, Ba dley fi led a pro se motion to reduc e his sentenc e based on amendments to the cra ck coc aine g uidelines. The district cour t appointed counse l, who raised the additional issues of whether the Fa ir Sentencing Act should be applied retroa ctively to Ba dley ’s caseNo. 10-4414

United States v. Badley and whether his sentenc e violates the Eig hth Amendment. After extensive briefing , the district court denied all the reque sted relief , and this appea l followed. Ba dley repe ats his arg uments that the Fa ir Sentencing Act should be retroa ctively applied and asks the court to ove rrule its holding in United St a t es v. Carradine , 621 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1706 (2011). He also

rea sserts his arg ument that his sentence of life without par ole violates the Eig hth Amendment. A motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2) is a narr ow reme dy which allows a challeng e to an exis ting sentenc e only wher e there has been a retro ac t i v e chang e to the sentenc ing g uidelines applicable to the offe nse of conviction. S ee Un i t ed S tates v. Carter , 500 F.3d 486, 490 (6th Cir. 2007). Be cause Ba dley was sentenc ed to a statutory mandatory minimum , he can raise no challeng e to his sentenc e under § 3582(c) (2). See United States v. Johnson , 564 F.3d 419, 423 (6th Cir. 2009). M o re o v er, our decision in Carradine fore closes his arg ument that the FSA should be applied retroa ctively

. Ba dley also attempts to raise constitutional arg uments. Wit h respe ct to his arg ument reg arding the retroa ctive application of the Fa ir Sentencing Act, he points out that the g overnme nt ag ree s that it can be applied retroa ctively to case s wher e the sentenc e has not y et been imposed, and arg ues that this inco nsistent approa ch violates his rig ht to equal protec tion of the laws. He also arg ues for expansion of the Supreme Court’s holding in Graham v. Florida , 130 S. Ct. 2011 (2010), which held that sentenc es of life without parole for juveniles who committed nonhomicide offe nses violate the Eig hth Amendment. Howeve r, we have ref used to expand this holding to case s in which the defe ndant, as here , was not a juvenile. United States v. Graham , 622 F.3d 445, 461-62 (6th Cir. 2010), cert. de nied, 131 S. Ct. 2962 (2011). Moreove r, such c onstitut ional issues cannot prope rly

-2-No. 10-4414

United States v. Badley be presented in a mot ion under § 3582(c)( 2). See U nited States v. Martin , 367 F. App’ x 584, 585 (6th Cir. 2010). For all of the above rea sons, the district court’s judgme nt denying Ba dley ’s motion to reduc e his sentence is affirme d.

-3-