United States v. Eddie James Reed , 615 F. App'x 946 ( 2015 )

Case: 15-11559 Date Filed: 09/18/2015 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-11559
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:07-cr-00019-WLS-TQL-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EDDIE JAMES REED,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(September 18, 2015)
Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-11559 Date Filed: 09/18/2015 Page: 2 of 4
Eddie James Reed, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district
court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction based
on Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. On appeal, Reed
contends that, although he is a career offender, he has been a model prisoner who
should be able to benefit from recent amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines
that lowered the base offense levels for drug offenses. After careful review, we
conclude that the district court was not authorized to grant § 3582(c)(2) relief
because Reed is a career offender. We therefore affirm.
Whether the district court is authorized to grant a sentence reduction under
§ 3582(c)(2) is a question of law reviewed de novo. See United States v. Davis,
587 F.3d 1300, 1303 (11th Cir. 2009). Under § 3582(c)(2), a district court may
reduce a defendant’s sentence where he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment
based on a guideline range that subsequently has been lowered by the Sentencing
Commission, “if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements
issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); see also U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10(a)(1)(a). It is the policy of the Sentencing Commission that a sentence
reduction is not authorized under § 3582(c)(2) when the retroactive guideline
amendment “does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable
guideline range.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B).
2
Case: 15-11559 Date Filed: 09/18/2015 Page: 3 of 4
Here, the district court properly denied Reed’s § 3582(c)(2) motion for a
sentence reduction. Amendment 782 revised the guidelines applicable to most
drug offenses by reducing the base offense levels found in the drug-quantity table
in § 2D1.1(c). U.S.S.G. app. C, Amend. 782. However, the total offense level of a
career offender, such as Reed, is determined by § 4B1.1, the career-offender
guideline, not § 2D1.1, the drug-offense guideline. As a result, Reed’s sentence
was based on a sentencing range produced by § 4B1.1, which, Reed acknowledges,
has not been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. Thus, although Amendment
782 is applicable to Reed, a drug offender, the district court was not authorized to
grant a reduction because the amendment did not have the effect of lowering his
applicable guideline range under § 4B1.1. See United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d
1323, 1330 (11th Cir. 2009) (“Where a retroactively applicable guideline
amendment reduces a defendant’s base offense level, but does not alter the
sentencing range upon which his or her sentence was based, § 3582(c)(2) does not
authorize a reduction in sentence.”); U.S.S.G. § 1B.10 cmt. n.1(A) (noting that
§ 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a sentence reduction where an amendment “is
applicable to the defendant but . . . does not have the effect of lowering the
defendant’s applicable guideline range because of the operation of another
guideline or statutory provision”); see also United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d
1317, 1321 (11th Cir. 2012).
3
Case: 15-11559 Date Filed: 09/18/2015 Page: 4 of 4
In short, Reed is ineligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) based
on Amendment 782 because he was sentenced as a career offender. We affirm the
denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion.
AFFIRMED.
4