United States v. Hargrove

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States v. Hargrove

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-60482 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MALCOLM JAMES HARGROVE,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:00-CR-72-1-P -------------------- December 12, 2002

Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Malcolm James Hargrove, federal prisoner # 11229-042

(“Hargrove”), appeals the district court’s denial of his motion

for reduction of sentence pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 3582

(c)(2).

Hargrove’s motion stems from his guilty-plea conviction for

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine,

for which he received the statutory mandatory-minimum 60-month

sentence pursuant to

21 U.S.C. § 841

(b)(1)(B). Hargrove had

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. No. 01-60482 -2-

unsuccessfully requested a safety-valve reduction in his sentence

pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines § 5C1.2. He

did not appeal his sentence. The present motion asserts that he

was entitled to a sentence reduction under

18 U.S.C. § 3582

(c)(2)

because he qualified for the safety valve.

Hargrove’s sentence-reduction motion was not authorized by

18 U.S.C. § 3582

(c)(2), which permits a defendant to seek a

sentence reduction when the term of imprisonment is based on

a sentencing range that subsequently has been lowered. See

18 U.S.C. § 3582

(c)(2); United States v. Early,

27 F.3d 140, 142

(5th Cir. 1994). Hargrove’s sentence was based on the statutory

mandatory-minimum sentence, not a sentencing range, and the

safety-valve provision was in place at the time of sentencing and

therefore does not constitute a new sentencing guideline for

purposes of

18 U.S.C. § 3582

(c)(2). Although the district court

did not specify the reason for the denial of the motion, it

should have been denied for lack of jurisdiction, Early,

27 F.3d at 142

, and we affirm on that basis.

AFFIRMED.

Reference

Status
Unpublished