USA v. Willie Cokumoa Rouse, III

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APR 30, 2010
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 09-16507
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 00-14078-CR-KMM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIE COKUMOA ROUSE, III,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(April 30, 2010)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Willie Rouse, III, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) motion for a reduction in sentence. We affirm.

-- 1 of 3 --

In 2001, Rouse pleaded guilty to three counts of possession with intent to
distribute crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. Although the amount of
drugs involved resulted in a base offense level of 26, the district court determined
Rouse to be a career offender, which increased his offense level to 34 and resulted
in a sentencing range of 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment. The court sentenced
Rouse to 235 months’ imprisonment.
In 2008, Rouse filed a pro se motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) based on retroactive amendments to the guidelines that lowered the
base offense level for crack cocaine offenses. The court denied the motion,
determining that Rouse was ineligible for a reduction because he had been
sentenced as a career offender. Rouse now appeals.
We review de novo a district court’s legal conclusions about the scope of its
authority under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1326 (11th
Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S.Ct. 965, and cert. denied, 129 S.Ct. 1601 (2009).
Pursuant to § 3582(c)(2), a district court may modify a term of imprisonment “in
the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based
on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
Rouse’s arguments are foreclosed by our precedent. A defendant sentenced
2

-- 2 of 3 --

as a career offender, whose guideline range was not based on the offense level for
crack cocaine, is ineligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2). Moore, 541 F.3d at
1327 (holding that when a defendant was sentenced as a career offender under
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, that defendant’s base offense level under § 2D1.1 for his crack
cocaine offense did not play a role in the calculation of the guidelines range and
the amendments did not lower the applicable guideline ranges). Moreover, United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) is inapplicable to § 3582(c)(2) motions.1
United States v. Moreno, 421 F.3d 1217, 1220 (11th Cir. 2005).
We are bound by decisions of prior panels of this court unless and until the
holding is overruled by the Supreme Court or by this court sitting en banc. United
States v. Hogan, 986 F.2d 1364, 1369 (11th Cir. 1993). Therefore, we conclude
the district court properly denied Rouse’s § 3582 motion.
AFFIRMED.
Rouse cites United States v. Dillon as support for his motion. United States v. Dillon,1
572 F.3d 146 (3d Cir.), cert. granted, 130 S.Ct. 797 (2009). It does not appear that the issues
presented in Dillon are applicable here. In any event, we remain bound by the decisions of prior
panels until overruled.
3

-- 3 of 3 --