Case Name: UNITED STATES of America v. Eric WILLIS, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-14
Citations: 467 F. App'x 111
Docket Number: No. 11-3582
Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. Eric WILLIS, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 467
Pages: 111–112

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America v. Eric WILLIS, Appellant.
No. 11-3582.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 Nov. 17, 2011.
Opinion filed: March 14, 2012.
Salvatore L. Astolfi, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellee.
Eric Willis, Loretto, PA, pro se.
Before: RENDELL, HARDIMAN and ROTH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.
As we write primarily for the parties, we will recite only the facts pertinent to this appeal. In 2004, defendant-appellant Eric Willis ('Willis") pleaded guilty to several charges stemming from a 2003 robbery of a U-Haul store in Philadelphia. His sentence included a consecutive ten-year term of incarceration — a mandatory minimum imposed by 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(l)(B)(i)— derived from a coconspirator's possession of a shotgun during the robbery. Willis has unsuccessfully challenged his sentence on both direct and collateral review. See generally United States v. Willis, C.A. No. 10-3585 (3d Cir., order entered Dec. 6, 2010); United States v. Willis, 186 Fed.Appx. 198 (3d Cir.2006).
In June of 2011, Willis commenced a new attack on his sentence, filing a motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 8582(c)(2). He claimed that "Amendment 599" had lowered his Guideline range, thereby justifying relief under § 3582. The District Court disagreed and denied the motion, observing that the relevant "sentencing guideline range [was] unaffected" by Amendment 599. Willis filed a timely notice of appeal.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. While we review the District Court's order primarily for abuse of discretion, our review of legal questions is plenary. See United States v. Mateo, 560 F.3d 152, 154 & n. 2 (3d Cir.2009).
We agree with the Government that Willis cannot obtain relief under § 3582(c). Even if Amendment 599, which antedated Willis's sentencing by several years, applied in the fashion he claims, it is clear from the pre-sentence report that Willis never received a firearms enhancement; rather, the lengthy sentence imposed by the District Court derived, in part, from the mandatory minimum required by 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(l)(B)(i). A mandatory-minimum term of imprisonment required by statute is not an element of the Guidelines, and Willis therefore cannot challenge that portion of his sentence via § 3582. See Dillon v. United States, — U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2691, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) ("[Section 3582(c)(2) ] applies only to a limited class of prisoners — namely, those whose sentence was based on a sentencing range subsequently lowered by the Commission."). Rather, a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the proper mechanism for challenging a federal conviction or sentence. See In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 249 (3d Cir.1997); see also United States v. Carter, 500 F.3d 486, 490 (6th Cir.2007) (distinguishing between motions brought under § 3582(c) and those brought under § 2255).
"Because this appeal does not present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm the District Court's judgment." Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 248 (3d Cir.2011); see also 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
. Amendment 599 expanded the commentary to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4 on the use of a firearm during or in relation to certain crimes, and clarified under what circumstances defendants sentenced for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) in conjunction with convictions for other offenses may receive weapon enhancements contained in the Guidelines for those other offenses. See 3 U.S. Sentencing Comm'n, Guidelines Manual C-572-74 (2010), available at http://www.ussc.gov/ Guidelines/201 l_Guidelines/ManuaL PDF/Appendix_C_Vol_II.pdf (2011 edition with identical textual content). Amendment 599 went into effect on November 1, 2000, and was made retroactive pursuant to U.S.S.G. § IB 1.10. For a discussion of Amendment 599, see United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469 (4th Cir.2004).