United States of America v. Andre Badley

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 12a0451n.06
No. 10-4414
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ANDRE BADLEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO
BEFORE: BOGGS, SUHRHEINRICH, and COOK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Andre Badley, a federal prisoner, appeals a district court judgment denying
his motion to reduce his sentence, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
At age nineteen, Badley was convicted in state court of three drug crimes. He was sentenced
to a total of one year of imprisonment for those crimes. At the age of twenty-one, Badley committed
the federal offenses for which he is currently imprisoned: possession with intent to distribute 115
grams of cocaine base and possession with intent to distribute less than 500 grams of cocaine. He
was convicted following a 1997 jury trial. Because Badley possessed more than fifty grams of
cocaine base, and had two previous felony drug convictions, he was subject to a mandatory sentence
of life imprisonment without parole. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1).
More than ten years later, Badley filed a pro se motion to reduce his sentence based on
amendments to the crack cocaine guidelines. The district court appointed counsel, who raised the
additional issues of whether the Fair Sentencing Act should be applied retroactively to Badley’s case

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 10-4414
United States v. Badley
and whether his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment. After extensive briefing, the district court
denied all the requested relief, and this appeal followed. Badley repeats his arguments that the Fair
Sentencing Act should be retroactively applied and asks the court to overrule its holding in United
States v. Carradine, 621 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1706 (2011). He also
reasserts his argument that his sentence of life without parole violates the Eighth Amendment.
A motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is a narrow remedy which allows a challenge to an
existing sentence only where there has been a retroactive change to the sentencing guidelines
applicable to the offense of conviction. See United States v. Carter, 500 F.3d 486, 490 (6th Cir.
2007). Because Badley was sentenced to a statutory mandatory minimum, he can raise no challenge
to his sentence under § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Johnson, 564 F.3d 419, 423 (6th Cir. 2009).
Moreover, our decision in Carradine forecloses his argument that the FSA should be applied
retroactively.
Badley also attempts to raise constitutional arguments. With respect to his argument
regarding the retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act, he points out that the government
agrees that it can be applied retroactively to cases where the sentence has not yet been imposed, and
argues that this inconsistent approach violates his right to equal protection of the laws. He also
argues for expansion of the Supreme Court’s holding in Graham v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2011 (2010),
which held that sentences of life without parole for juveniles who committed nonhomicide offenses
violate the Eighth Amendment. However, we have refused to expand this holding to cases in which
the defendant, as here, was not a juvenile. United States v. Graham, 622 F.3d 445, 461-62 (6th Cir.
2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 2962 (2011). Moreover, such constitutional issues cannot properly
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 10-4414
United States v. Badley
be presented in a motion under § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Martin, 367 F. App’x 584, 585
(6th Cir. 2010).
For all of the above reasons, the district court’s judgment denying Badley’s motion to reduce
his sentence is affirmed.
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --