Court Opinion

ID: 9435837
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 00:21:56.024956+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:10.835824
License: Public Domain

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 *869reduce 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.