Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-25
Citations: 609 F.3d 868
Docket Number: No. 08-6023
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MERRITT, COOK, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 609
Pages: 868–870

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-6023.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
June 25, 2010.
ON BRIEF: Christopher E. Cotten, Assistant United States Attorney, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellee. Johnny Robinson, Forrest City, Arizona, pro se.
Before MERRITT, COOK, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
COOK, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which KETHLEDGE, J., joined. MERRITT, J. (pp. 869-70), delivered a separate opinion concurring in the result only.
OPINION
COOK, Circuit Judge.
Johnny Robinson appeals pro se from a district court order granting his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and moves for appointment of counsel on appeal. Because the district court properly recognized the binding nature of the Guidelines, we affirm.
A jury convicted the defendant of possessing cocaine base, conspiring to distribute cocaine base, and carrying a firearm during a drug crime, and the court sentenced him to 248 months' imprisonment. After the Sentencing Guidelines' amendments for crack cocaine reduced his Guideline range for the cocaine base charge to 151-188 months, Robinson moved for a reduced sentence. The district court found that it lacked the authority under § 3582(c)(2) to reduce Robinson's sentence below the Guidelines and sentenced him to 151 months on the cocaine base charge, with a mandatory 60-month consecutive sentence for the firearms charge, for a total sentence of 211 months. We review de novo the district court's interpretation of the statute. United States v. Washington, 584 F.3d 693, 695 (6th Cir.2009).
Robinson argues that the district court had the authority to further reduce his sentence. The government insists that Robinson forfeited this issue by failing to properly develop the argument. See Dillery v. City of Sandusky, 398 F.3d 562, 569 (6th Cir.2005). Whether or not Robinson sufficiently briefed the point, his argument fails because this court has definitively opined "that pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), a district court is not authorized to reduce a defendant's sentence below the amended Guidelines range." Washington, 584 F.3d at 701; see also Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2692-94, — L.Ed.-(2010) (Booker's constitutional holding inapplicable to Section 3582(c)(2) proceedings).
Accordingly, we affirm Robinson's sentence and deny his motion for the appointment of counsel.