Court Opinion

ID: 9905477
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 17:01:38.664236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:36.677575
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-14027    Document: 26-1     Date Filed: 11/29/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                               [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-14027
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       ISRAEL CALLI DUENAS,
       a.k.a. Israel Kelly,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.
                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 3:94-cr-03093-RV-3
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-14027         Document: 26-1            Date Filed: 11/29/2023   Page: 2 of 3

       2                          Opinion of the Court                     22-14027

       Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Israel Duenas appeals the district court’s denial of his motion
       for a sentence reduction under § 404 of the First Step Act of 2018,
       Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. Duenas asserts the district
       court had the authority to modify his life sentence when it was
       based on a pre-Apprendi, 1 judge-made drug quantity finding. After
       review, 2 we affirm the district court.
               The First Step Act grants a court the discretion to “impose a
       reduced sentence as if sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act
       . . . were in effect at the time the covered offense was committed.”
       First Step Act § 404(b); see generally Fair Sentencing Act of 2010,
       Public Law 111–220, 124 Stat. 2372 (2010) (reducing sentencing dis-
       parities between crack and powder cocaine). Under the Fair Sen-
       tencing Act, a defendant who possesses with intent to distribute
       280 grams of cocaine base and has two or more prior convictions
       for a felony drug offense must be sentenced to life imprisonment.
       21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) (2010) (amended 2018).
              A district court has no authority to reduce a sentence under
       the First Step Act “if the defendant received the lowest statutory
       penalty that also would be available to him under the Fair

       1 Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).

       2 “We review de novo questions of statutory interpretation and whether a dis-

       trict court had the authority to modify a term of imprisonment.” United States
       v. Jackson, 58 F.4th 1331, 1335 (11th Cir. 2023).
USCA11 Case: 22-14027      Document: 26-1       Date Filed: 11/29/2023     Page: 3 of 3

       22-14027                Opinion of the Court                          3

       Sentencing Act.” United States v. Clowers, 62 F.4th 1377, 1380 (11th
       Cir. 2023) (quotation marks omitted). In determining what a mo-
       vant’s statutory penalty would have been under the Fair Sentenc-
       ing Act, the district court is bound by previous drug quantity find-
       ings, including those made by a judge, that could have been used
       to determine the movant’s statutory penalty at the time of sentenc-
       ing. United States v. Jackson, 58 F.4th 1331, 1337–38 (11th Cir. 2023).
               The district court did not err when it denied Duenas’s mo-
       tion. Based on the judge-found quantity of over 280 grams of co-
       caine base and his prior convictions, Duenas would be subject to a
       mandatory life sentence under the Fair Sentencing Act. 21 U.S.C.
       § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) (2010). Because Duenas received the lowest stat-
       utory penalty that would be available to him under the Fair Sen-
       tencing Act, the First Step Act did not grant the district judge the
       authority to reduce his sentence. See Clowers, 62 F.4th at 1380. In
       determining whether it had the authority to reduce his sentence,
       the district court was bound by the judge-made drug quantity find-
       ing. See Jackson, 58 F.4th at 1337-38. While Duenas has preserved
       his argument for possible future review, this Court is bound to fol-
       low the precedent set forth in Jackson. See United States v. Gillis, 938
       F.3d 1181, 1198 (11th Cir. 2019) (“Under our prior panel precedent
       rule, we are bound to follow a prior panel’s holding unless and until
       it is overruled or undermined to the point of abrogation by an opin-
       ion of the Supreme Court or of this Court sitting en banc.”).
              AFFIRMED.