Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Travis LITTLE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-07-07
Citations: 571 F. App'x 437
Docket Number: No. 13-5167
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Travis LITTLE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: BEFORE: MOORE, SUTTON and ALARCÓN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 571
Pages: 437–438

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Travis LITTLE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-5167.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
July 7, 2014.
BEFORE: MOORE, SUTTON and ALARCÓN, Circuit Judges.
The Honorable Arthur L. Alarcon, Senior Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUTTON, Circuit Judge.
Travis Little pleaded guilty to possessing around 20 grams of crack cocaine, and in February 2008, the district court sentenced him to serve five years in prison for that offense — the statutory minimum sentence at the time — on top of five years for a related firearms charge. Two years later, Congress eliminated the statutory minimum for Little's crack-cocaine offense in the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. Little sought to take advantage of the change by requesting a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) in district court, but to no avail. He now presses his claim for relief under § 3582(c)(2) on appeal.
While Little's appeal was pending, our court decided United States v. Blewett, 746 F.3d 647 (6th Cir.2013) (en banc). Unfortunately for Little, this decision forecloses all three arguments he presses on appeal: that the Fair Sentencing Act applies retroactively to defendants sentenced before its passage; that denying Little a sentence reduction violates the Equal Protection Clause; and that Little's sentence violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Id. at 650-60. Little recognizes that Blewett binds this panel and dictates affirmance. He wishes only to preserve these arguments for review by a higher tribunal, as he is entitled to do.
For these reasons, we affirm.