United States v. Willie Clay Means, 663 F. App'x 881

Defendant Willie Clay Means, pro se, sought sentence reductions under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendments 750 and 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines (crack and drug-quantity adjustments).
Means first filed a § 3582(c)(2) motion in 2011 asserting Amendment 750 lowered his offense level; the district court denied relief because he was serving mandatory life sentences and the guideline term remained life. Means voluntarily dismissed his appeal.
In 2015 Means filed a second § 3582(c)(2) motion asserting Amendments 750 and 782 lowered his total offense level; the district court again denied relief and Means appealed, arguing only that Amendment 750 reduced his base level from 38 to 36.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo the district court’s statutory-authority conclusions and applied liberal construction to Means’s pro se brief, but treated unbriefed issues as abandoned.
The court held Means’s Amendment 750 claim was barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine because he had previously raised it and dismissed the prior appeal; alternatively, any amendment could not lower his guideline range because his five mandatory life sentences controlled the guideline range.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Amendment 750 (and 782) makes Means eligible for § 3582(c)(2) reduction	Means: Amendment 750 lowered his base offense level (38 to 36), entitling him to a reduced sentence	Gov/District Ct: Prior denial and dismissal invoke law-of-the-case; also mandatory life terms control guideline range so amendments do not lower range	Affirmed: Claim barred by law-of-the-case; alternatively ineligible because mandatory life sentences set guideline range
Whether the district court had jurisdiction to consider the second § 3582(c)(2) motion	Means: (implicit) court should consider the new motion	Gov: Prior procedural denial does not preclude reconsideration; court retains jurisdiction here	Court: District court had jurisdiction, but relief nonetheless unavailable on merits or barred by law-of-the-case

United States v. Colon, 707 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir.) (standard: de novo review of § 3582(c)(2) scope)
United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778 (11th Cir.) (two-step § 3582(c)(2) analysis: recalculate guideline then exercise discretion)
United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir.) (no reduction when amendment changes base level but not the guideline range used for sentence)
United States v. Mills, 613 F.3d 1070 (11th Cir.) (mandatory minimum longer than guideline low end makes mandatory minimum govern range)
United States v. Escobar-Urrego, 110 F.3d 1556 (11th Cir.) (law-of-the-case doctrine and its three exceptions)
United States v. Anderson, 772 F.3d 662 (11th Cir.) (district court jurisdiction to consider successive § 3582(c)(2) motions; effect of prior procedural denials)
United States v. Phillips, 597 F.3d 1190 (11th Cir.) (application of Rule 35(a) time limit to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings)
Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870 (11th Cir.) (pro se briefs read liberally; unbriefed issues deemed abandoned)