[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-12816

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:89-cr-04006-WS-CAS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 versus

STANTON DONOVAN ROBINSON, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(September 1, 2020)

Before JILL PRYOR, BRASHER and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 19-12816 Date Filed: 09/01/2020 Page: 1 of 9
2

The government appeals the district court’s order granting Stanton 

Robinson’s motion for a sentence reduction, pursuant to the First Step Act of 2018, 

Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404(b), 132 Stat. 5194, 5222, which authorizes a sentence 

reduction for defendants convicted of offenses whose statutory penalties were 

modified by the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. The government argues the district 

court erred in finding Robinson was eligible for relief because it found, at his 

original sentencing, that he was directly involved with at least ten kilograms of 

crack cocaine, the statutory penalties for which were not changed by Fair 

Sentencing Act, and thus he was not convicted of a “covered offense” under the 

First Step Act. After review,1 we affirm.

Prior to both the First Step Act and the Fair Sentencing Act, a person 

convicted of a drug trafficking offense involving at least 5 grams but less than 50

grams of crack cocaine was subject to the sentencing provisions in 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841(b)(1)(B), while a person convicted of a similar offense involving 50 grams 

or more of crack cocaine was subject to the provisions of § 841(b)(1)(A). See 21 

U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B) (2006). Subsection (b)(1)(A) provided for a 

mandatory minimum sentence of ten years’ imprisonment, while subsection 

1 We review de novo whether a district court had authority to modify a term of 

imprisonment. United States v. Jones, 962 F.3d 1290, 1296 (11th Cir. 2020). Although district 

courts lack the inherent authority to modify a term of imprisonment, they may do so to the extent 

that a statute expressly permits. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B). The First Step Act expressly 

permits district courts to reduce a previously imposed term of imprisonment. Jones, 962 F.3d at 

1297.

Case: 19-12816 Date Filed: 09/01/2020 Page: 2 of 9
3

(b)(1)(B) provided for a mandatory minimum sentence of five years’ 

imprisonment. Id. 

Additionally, and as relevant here, both subsections also provided for 

increased penalties where a defendant had one or more prior convictions for a 

“serious drug felony.” Id. A defendant subject to the penalty provisions of 

subsection (b)(1)(A) who had two or more prior convictions for a serious drug 

felony faced a mandatory life sentence. § 841(b)(1)(A). A similarly situated 

defendant who was subject to the penalties in subsection (b)(1)(B), on the other 

hand, was subject to a ten-year mandatory minimum. 

In the instant case, a jury found Robinson guilty of conspiracy to possess 

with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 

U.S.C. § 846, and possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of crack

cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. At the time of Robinson’s convictions in 

1989, he had at least two prior felony drug convictions. Because his conviction 

involved at least 50 grams of crack cocaine and due to his prior drug convictions, 

Robinson was subject to a mandatory life sentence under § 841(b)(1)(A).

The Fair Sentencing Act, enacted on August 3, 2010, amended 21 U.S.C. 

§§ 841(b)(1) and 960(b) to reduce the sentencing disparity between crack and 

powder cocaine. Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 

2372; see Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260, 268-69 (2012). Section 2 of the 

Case: 19-12816 Date Filed: 09/01/2020 Page: 3 of 9
4

Fair Sentencing Act changed the quantity of crack cocaine necessary to trigger the 

more severe sentencing provisions of § 841(b)(1)(A) from 50 grams to 280 grams, 

and the quantity necessary to trigger the provisions of § 841(b)(1)(B) from 5 grams 

to 28 grams. Fair Sentencing Act § 2(a)(1)-(2); see also 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841(b)(1)(A)(iii), (B)(iii). 

As a result, for a defendant like Robinson with two prior felony drug 

convictions who was convicted under § 841(b)(1)(A), the Fair Sentencing Act 

changed the quantity necessary to trigger a mandatory life sentence from 50 grams 

to 280 grams. See Fair Sentencing Act § 2(a)(1)-(2); 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). A

defendant with two prior felony convictions who was convicted of an offense 

involving 50 grams or more of cocaine would now be subject to the penalties in 

§ 841(b)(1)(B), which provides for a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years’ 

imprisonment and a maximum of life. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii). 

In 2018, Congress enacted the First Step Act, which made retroactive the 

statutory penalties for covered offenses enacted under the Fair Sentencing Act. See 

First Step Act, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404, 132 Stat. 5194. Under § 404(b) of the 

First Step Act, a court “that imposed a sentence for a covered offense may . . . 

impose a reduced sentence as if sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act . . . 

were in effect at the time the covered offense was committed.” Id. § 404(b). The 

statute defines “covered offense” as “a violation of a Federal criminal statute, the 

Case: 19-12816 Date Filed: 09/01/2020 Page: 4 of 9
5

statutory penalties for which were modified by section 2 or 3 of the Fair 

Sentencing Act . . . , that was committed before August 3, 2010.” Id. § 404(a).

The government here argues Robinson was not convicted of a “covered 

offense” and the district court therefore did not have the authority to lower his 

sentence. Specifically, the government argues that because the district court found 

during Robinson’s sentencing that he was “directly involved” with over ten

kilograms of cocaine, he would have been subject to the increased penalties in 

§ 841(b)(1)(A) even in light of the Fair Sentencing Act, and he therefore was not 

convicted of “a violation of a Federal criminal statute, the statutory penalties for 

which were modified by” the Fair Sentencing Act. It is the government’s position 

that the district court should have considered the actual amount of crack cocaine 

involved in Robinson’s offense in determining his eligibility for a sentence 

reduction. However, this Court recently rejected that position in United States v. 

Jones, 962 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2020).

In Jones, we considered the appeals of four federal prisoners whose motions 

for a reduction of sentence pursuant to § 404(b) were denied in the district courts. 

See Jones, 962 F.3d at 1293. First, we concluded that “a movant’s offense is a 

covered offense if section two or three of the Fair Sentencing Act modified its 

statutory penalties.” Jones, 962 F.3d at 1298. Because Section 2 of the Fair 

Sentencing Act “modified the statutory penalties for crack-cocaine offenses that 

Case: 19-12816 Date Filed: 09/01/2020 Page: 5 of 9
6

have as an element the quantity of crack cocaine provided in subsections

841(b)(1)(A)(iii) and (B)(iii),” a movant is considered to have been convicted of a 

covered offense if he was sentenced for an offense that triggered one of those 

statutory penalties. Id. at 1298, 1301. We specifically rejected the government’s 

argument that a district court should consider the actual quantity of crack cocaine 

involved in a movant’s violation. Id. at 1301. Instead, we held the district court 

should consider only whether the quantity of crack cocaine satisfied the specific 

drug quantity elements in § 841—in other words, whether his offense involved 50 

grams or more of crack cocaine, therefore triggering § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii), or 

between 5 and 50 grams, therefore triggering § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii). Id. 

Applying this standard to the four movants in Jones, we concluded all four 

were sentenced for covered offenses because they were all sentenced for offenses 

whose penalties were modified by the Fair Sentencing Act. Id. at 1302–03. One 

movant in particular merits mentioning here. Similar to the situation in the instant 

case, we determined that movant Allen—who was charged in 2006 with 

conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of crack cocaine, found by a jury to be 

responsible for that drug amount, and attributed with between 420 and 784 grams 

of crack cocaine per week at sentencing—was convicted of a covered offense, 

noting that the higher drug-quantity finding at sentencing “did not trigger the 

statutory penalty for [his] offense.” Id. 

Case: 19-12816 Date Filed: 09/01/2020 Page: 6 of 9
7

In light of Jones, we readily reject the government’s argument here that 

Robinson was not convicted of a “covered offense.” However, as we further noted 

in Jones, “a movant’s satisfaction of the ‘covered offense’ requirement does not 

necessarily mean that a district court can reduce his sentence.” Id. at 1303. The 

“as if” qualifier in Section 404(b) of the First Step Act, which states that any 

reduction must be “as if sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act . . . were in 

effect at the time the covered offense was committed,” imposes two limitations on 

the district court’s authority. Id. (quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original); 

see First Step Act § 404(b). 

First, the district court cannot reduce a sentence where the movant received 

the lowest statutory penalty that would also be available to him under the Fair 

Sentencing Act. Jones, 962 F.3d at 1303. Second, “in determining what a 

movant’s statutory penalty would be under the Fair Sentencing Act, the district 

court is bound by a previous finding of drug quantity that could have been used to 

determine the movant’s statutory penalty at the time of sentencing.” Id. Applying 

these limitations, we held that if a movant’s sentence necessarily would have 

remained the same had the Fair Sentencing Act been in effect—in other words, if 

his sentence was equal to the mandatory minimum imposed by the Fair Sentencing 

Act for the quantity of crack cocaine that triggered his statutory penalty—then the 

Case: 19-12816 Date Filed: 09/01/2020 Page: 7 of 9
8

Fair Sentencing Act would not have benefitted him, and the First Step Act does not 

authorize the district court to reduce his sentence. Id. at 1303.

Here, although the district court made a finding at sentencing that Robinson 

was directly involved with over ten kilograms of cocaine, the district court would 

only be bound by that finding to the extent it triggered the statutory penalty for 

Robinson’s offense. See id. at 1302–03. There is no indication in the record that 

the sentencing judge—who also granted Robinson’s motion—applied the higher 

statutory penalties based on the ten-kilogram finding. Rather, it appears that 

finding was merely relevant to determining Robinson’s guideline range. Indeed, 

both the indictment and the judgment describe Robinson’s offenses simply as 

involving “50 grams or more” of crack cocaine.

Again, movant Allen’s case from Jones is instructive here. There, too, the 

district court made a finding that he had been “responsible for” a higher drug 

quantity—“between 420 and 784 grams of crack cocaine per week.” Id. at 1294–

95, 1302–03. But we concluded that finding “did not trigger the statutory penalty 

for Allen’s offense.” Id. at 1302–03. Instead, the district court determined his 

statutory range based on the jury’s finding that he was responsible for 50 grams or 

more of crack cocaine. Id. at 1304.

Because Robinson was convicted for an offense involving 50 grams or more 

of crack cocaine under § 841(b)(1)(A), the statutory penalties for which were 

Case: 19-12816 Date Filed: 09/01/2020 Page: 8 of 9
9

modified by the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, the district court correctly 

determined that he was eligible for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act. 

Moreover, in reducing Robinson’s sentence “as if” sections 2 and 3 of the Fair 

Sentencing Act were in effect, the district court had the discretion to reduce 

Robinson’s sentence to 440 months’ imprisonment. Accordingly, we affirm. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-12816 Date Filed: 09/01/2020 Page: 9 of 9