USA v. Beauvais

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-10027
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:01-cr-14029-DMM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lPlaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HAROLD BEAUVAIS,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 1, 2013)
Before CARNES, HULL, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-10027 Date Filed: 04/01/2013 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

Harold Beauvais was convicted by jury of one count of possessing with
intent to distribute 50 or more grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §
841(a)(1). The presentence investigation report concluded that Beauvais was
responsible for 50.9 grams of crack cocaine. Based on that quantity, the PSR
assigned a base offense level of 32, which became his total offense level because
no other adjustments applied. See United States Sentencing Guidelines §
2D1.1(c)(4) (Nov. 2001). Beauvais’ criminal history category was I, resulting in a
guidelines range of 121 to 151 months imprisonment. Beauvais was also subject
to a mandatory minimum sentence of 240 months because he had a prior drug
conviction. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2001). Because the statutory
mandatory minimum sentence was greater than the otherwise applicable guidelines
range, the statutory mandatory minimum of 240 months became Beauvais’
guidelines range. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(c)(2). In 2002 the district court sentenced
him to the mandatory minimum term of 240 months imprisonment.
In 2011 Beauvais, acting pro se, filed a motion to reduce his sentence under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), contending that Amendment 750 to the sentencing
guidelines and the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 had reduced his guidelines range.
The district court denied that motion, concluding that Beauvais was not eligible
2
Case: 12-10027 Date Filed: 04/01/2013 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) because he was subject to a mandatory
minimum sentence of 240 months. This is Beauvais’ appeal.
Beauvais contends that Amendment 750 lowered his base offense level and
that under the Fair Sentencing Act, he would be subject to a mandatory minimum
of only 120 months instead of 240 months. But even if the Fair Sentencing Act
would lower the mandatory minimum sentence applicable to him, that Act does
not apply retroactively to defendants like Beauvais who were sentenced before its
enactment in 2010. See United States v. Hippolyte, — F.3d —, No. 11-15933,
2013 WL 978695, at *5 (11th Cir. 2013). “[W]hen a defendant’s sentence is based
on a statutory mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1) that is above the
applicable guidelines range, Amendment 750 does not lower that guidelines
sentence, and the defendant is not eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction.”
Id. at *3 (quotation marks omitted). Because Beauvais’ sentence of 240 months
was based on the statutory mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A),
which is above the otherwise applicable guidelines range, Amendment 750 did not
lower Beauvais’ guidelines range and he is not eligible for a sentence reduction
under § 3582(c)(2).
AFFIRMED.
3
Case: 12-10027 Date Filed: 04/01/2013 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --