UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6269

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KEITH HARRIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:06-cr-00100-FL-2)

Submitted: July 13, 2012 Decided: July 26, 2012

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer 

P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Keith Harris appeals a district court order denying 

his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c) (2006). We affirm. 

This court reviews for abuse of discretion a district 

court’s decision on whether to reduce a sentence under 

§ 3582(c)(2) but reviews de novo a court’s conclusion on the 

scope of its legal authority under that provision. United 

States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010). Under 

§ 3582(c)(2), a district court may modify a defendant’s term of 

imprisonment when the defendant is “sentenced to a term of 

imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently 

been lowered by the Sentencing Commission[.]” Any reduction 

must be consistent with applicable policy statements offered by 

the Sentencing Commission. Munn, 595 F.3d at 186.

Under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(2), a 

defendant may not receive a new sentence pursuant to an amended 

Guideline that is lower than the amended Guideline range. There 

is an exception for those persons who received a sentence below 

the Guidelines range of imprisonment due to their substantial 

assistance. In those cases, a reduction below the amended 

Guidelines range that is comparable to the original reduction 

may be appropriate. Harris received a sentence below the 

statutory minimum sentence as a result of the Government’s 
3

motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (2006) and U.S. Sentencing 

Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1.

A reduction is not authorized under § 3582(c)(2) and 

is not consistent with the Guidelines’ policy statements if the 

applicable amendment does not have the effect of lowering the 

defendant’s Guidelines range because of the operation of another 

statutory provision, such as a statutory minimum term of 

imprisonment. See USSG § 1B1.10(2) cmt. n.1(A).

We conclude that the district court correctly found it 

was not authorized to reduce Harris’ sentence further because 

his sentence was based on the statutory mandatory minimum 

sentence and not on a Guidelines range that was subsequently 

lowered. See United States v. Johnson, 564 F.3d 419, 421-23 

(6th Cir. 2009) (starting point for a downward departure under 

§ 3553(e) is the statutory minimum sentence).

Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED