Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Deangelo GRIFFIN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-24
Citations: 471 F. App'x 849
Docket Number: No. 11-15632
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Deangelo GRIFFIN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 471
Pages: 849–850

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Deangelo GRIFFIN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-15632
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
May 24, 2012.
Ramona Albin, Jeffrey Michael Anderson, Michael B. Billingsley, Alice H. Martin, William G. Simpson, Joyce White Vance, Leonard James Weil, Jr., Michael Wayne Whisonant, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael Deangelo Griffin, Lisbon, OH, pro se.
Before MARCUS, MARTIN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michael Griffin, proceeding pro se, appeals the denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). On June 15, 2006, Griffin was sentenced to sixty-three months imprisonment for one count of possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute. On March 6, 2009, that sentence was reduced to the statutory mandatory minimum of sixty months imprisonment. On August 22, 2011, Griffin filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), seeking a further reduction in his sentence. On November 10, 2011, the district court denied that motion.
On appeal, Griffin argues that a reduction in his sentence is warranted in light of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Our precedent, however, makes it clear that a defendant cannot obtain a sentence reduction under Section 3582(c)(2) if his sentence is already at the statutory mandatory minimum. See United States v. Mills, 613 F.3d 1070, 1077-78 (11th Cir.2010). Griffin also asserts that the district court should have granted his Section 3582(c)(2) motion by affording him safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). Our precedent also forecloses this suggestion. See United States v. Jackson, 613 F.3d 1305, 1308 (11th Cir. 2010) (holding that "the safety-valve is inapplicable to sentence-modification proceedings" under Section 3582(c)(2)).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
AFFIRMED.