Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Dexter FRANCIS, aka Christian Dexter, aka Francis Dexter, aka Andre Huskin, aka Wayne Hoyt, aka Allen Dale Moffett, aka Jihad Muhammed, aka Coolman, aka Junks, aka Juncks, aka Michael Roberts, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-05-04
Citations: 639 F. App'x 47
Docket Number: No. 15-1723-cr
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Dexter FRANCIS, aka Christian Dexter, aka Francis Dexter, aka Andre Huskin, aka Wayne Hoyt, aka Allen Dale Moffett, aka Jihad Muhammed, aka Coolman, aka Junks, aka Juncks, aka Michael Roberts, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., GUIDO CALABRESI and PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 639
Pages: 47–48

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Dexter FRANCIS, aka Christian Dexter, aka Francis Dexter, aka Andre Huskin, aka Wayne Hoyt, aka Allen Dale Moffett, aka Jihad Muhammed, aka Coolman, aka Junks, aka Juncks, aka Michael Roberts, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-1723-cr.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
May 4, 2016.
Kevin Trowel, Emily Berger, Assistant United States Attorneys, United States Attorneys’ Office for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY, for Appellee.
Dexter Francis, pro se, Coleman, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., GUIDO CALABRESI and PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Appellant Dexter Francis, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's order denying his motion to. reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), and Amendment 782 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (the "Guidelines"), which lowered the base offense levels applicable to drug quantity calculations under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
Under § 3582(c)(2), a distinct court may reduce "a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission . if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission." Id. We review de novo a district court's determination as to whether the defendant's sentence was "based on" a sentencing range that was subsequently lowered by the Commission. See United States v. Williams, 551 F.3d 182, 185 (2d Cir.2009).
Upon review we conclude that the district court properly determined that Francis was ineligible for a reduction pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). First, because Francis was sentenced pursuant to a statutory mandatory minimum term, his sentence was not "based" on a guidelines range that was. subsequently lowered by Amendment 782. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B); Williams, 551 F.3d at 185. Second, Francis's offense level was based on the guideline for first degree murder, U.S.S.G. § 2A1.1, not on the drug quantity calculation under § 2D1.1; therefore, Amendment 782 "does not have the effect of lowering [his] applicable guideline range." U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a)(2)(B).
We have considered all of Francis's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the order of the district court.