United States v. Kenneth Jackson

486 F. App'x 756

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: August 20, 2012
• Docket: 12-11497
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, federal prisoners were convicted of crack cocaine crimes. In each case, the district court calculated the prisoners’ guidelines ranges using the career offender guideline because each prisoner had at least two prior felony convictions for a controlled substance offense. See United States Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.1 (Nov. 2011). The prisoners later filed motions to reduce their sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), contending that Amendment 750 to the guidelines, which lowered the base offense levels for crack cocaine crimes in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, had reduced their guidelines ranges. The district court denied those motions, and these are the prisoners’ appeals.

The district court did not err in denying the § 3582(c)(2) motions. In United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir.2008), we held that “[w]here a retroactively applicable guideline amendment reduces a defendant’s base offense level, but does not alter the [career offender] sentencing range upon which his or her sentence was based, § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a reduction in sentence.” Moore controls here. Amendment 750 did not alter the prisoners’ career offender guidelines ranges, so the district court is not authorized to reduce their sentences under § 3582(c)(2). See Moore, 541 F.3d at 1330; see also United States v. Glover, 686 F.3d 1203, 1206 (11th Cir.2012) (“[Section 3582(c)(2) ], the Sentencing Commission’s corresponding policy statement, and the commentary to that policy statement all make it clear that a court cannot use an amendment to reduce a sentence in a particular case unless that amendment actually lowers the guidelines range in that case. It is that simple.”). The prisoners argue that the Supreme Court’s decision in Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2685, 180 L.Ed.2d 519 (2011), abrogated our decision in Moore, but we have already rejected that argument. See United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317, 1320-21 (11th Cir.2012).

AFFIRMED.