Case Name: UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Quantavian Yemetrius HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-02-12
Citations: 507 F. App'x 912
Docket Number: No. 12-14324
Parties: UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Quantavian Yemetrius HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MARCUS, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 507
Pages: 912–913

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Quantavian Yemetrius HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-14324
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Feb. 12, 2013.
Judy K. Hunt, Maria Chapa Lopez, Robert E. O’Neill, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Quantavian Yemetrius Harris,. Coleman, FL, pro se.
Before MARCUS, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Quantavian Harris appeals pro se the ' denial of his motion .to reduce his sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). We affirm.
The district court did not err. Harris is ineligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 750 because he was sentenced as a career offender. See United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 568, 184 L.Ed.2d 371 (2012). Harris also cannot obtain relief based on the lower mandatory minimum sentence provided under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. The Act "is not a guidelines amendment by the Sentencing Commission, but rather a statutory change by Congress, and . does not serve as a basis for a . sentence reduction" under section 3582(c)(2), and in any event, the lower mandatory sentence does not apply retroactivély .to offenders who, like Harris, were sentenced before the effective date of the Act. United States v. Berry, 701 F.3d 374, 377 (11th Cir.2012). Harris argues, for the first time, that denying him the benefit of a reduced sentence under the Act violates his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, but we cannot consider these "extraneous sentencing issues." United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 782 (11th Cir.2000). Harris may raise his constitutional arguments in a collateral motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
We AFFIRM the denial of Harris's motion to reduce his sentence.