USA v. Bobby Lee Ingram

[DO NOT PUBLISH]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: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 19-11257
ON REMAND FROM THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before GRANT, L UCK , 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(unpublished).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: 2 of 3

-- 2 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.
USCA11 Case: 19-11257 Document: 64-1 Date Filed: 05/17/2023 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --