Court Opinion

ID: 9395316
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-17 19:00:52.670972+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:07.439616
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 19-11257    Document: 64-1     Date Filed: 05/17/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 19-11257
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       BOBBY LEE INGRAM,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Georgia
                 D.C. Docket No. 5:94-cr-00002-WTM-BWC-2
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 19-11257        Document: 64-1        Date Filed: 05/17/2023        Page: 2 of 3

       2                         Opinion of the Court                     19-11257

                             ON REMAND FROM THE
                 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

       Before GRANT, LUCK, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              In this appeal, we originally affirmed in part and vacated in
       part the district court’s order denying Bobby Lee Ingram’s motion
       for a sentence reduction under section 404 of the First Step Act
       2018. See United States v. Ingram, 831 F. App’x 454 (11th Cir. 2020)
       (unpublished). In pertinent part, * we concluded -- based on our
       decision in United States v. Jones, 962 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2020) --
       that the district court was bound by its earlier judge-made finding
       that Ingram was responsible for 4,167 grams of crack cocaine.
       Given that drug-quantity finding, we concluded that a “sentence of
       life imprisonment [was] still the lowest possible penalty that would
       be available to [Ingram] under the Fair Sentencing Act.” The dis-
       trict court thus lacked authority to reduce Ingram’s sentence for
       Count 1. See Ingram, 831 F. App’x at 458.

       * Because we found the record ambiguous about whether the district court
       understood properly the scope of its authority to reduce Ingram’s sentence on
       Count 14, we vacated in part the district court’s denial and remanded for fur-
       ther proceedings. That portion of our decision is not at issue now.
USCA11 Case: 19-11257     Document: 64-1     Date Filed: 05/17/2023    Page: 3 of 3

       19-11257               Opinion of the Court                       3

              The Supreme Court later granted certiorari, vacated our de-
       cision, and remanded the case to us for additional consideration in
       the light of its decision in Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct.
       2389 (2022). See Ingram v. United States, 143 S. Ct. 70 (2022).
              We have since concluded that the Supreme Court’s decision
       in Concepcion did not abrogate the reasoning of our decision in
       Jones, including our determination that “the district court is bound
       by a previous finding of drug quantity that could have been used
       to determine the movant’s statutory penalty at the time of sen-
       tence.” See United States v. Jackson, 58 F.4th 1331, 2023 U.S. App.
       LEXIS 2772 *1, *8-9 (11th Cir. 2023) (reinstating the Court’s prior
       decision affirming the denial of Jackson’s motion to reduce his sen-
       tence).
              Because our decision in Jones remains binding law, we rein-
       state our prior decision in this appeal.
           OPINION REINSTATED; AFFIRMED                       IN   PART,
       VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.