Case: 12-16177 Date Filed: 09/06/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-16177
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:01-cr-00072-CAR-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
KELWIN HOOD,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(September 6, 2013)
Before CARNES, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Kelwin Hood appeals the district court’s denial of his request for a sentence
reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Hood argues that he should benefit from
Case: 12-16177 Date Filed: 09/06/2013 Page: 2 of 3
the reduction in penalties for crack offenses enacted by Amendment 750 and the
Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. We review de novo a district court’s legal
conclusions about the scope of its authority under § 3582(c)(2). United States v.
Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317, 1319 (11th Cir. 2012).
A district court may reduce a defendant’s prison term if the defendant was
“sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has
subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2). But “[w]here 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.” United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir. 2008); see also
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) (providing that a § 3582(c)(2) reduction is not
authorized if the amendment “does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s
applicable guidelines range”).
Amendment 750 lowered the base-offense levels for particular crack cocaine
quantities under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. See U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 750. A career
offender’s guidelines range is determined by § 4B1.1, not § 2D1.1, so his sentence
may not be reduced based on an amendment to the § 2D1.1. Moore, 541 F.3d at
1327, 1330. Because Hood was a career offender and was sentenced based on the
2
Case: 12-16177 Date Filed: 09/06/2013 Page: 3 of 3
career offender guidelines range found in § 4B1.1, he is not entitled to a reduction
under § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 750.
Hood argues that under Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. —, 131 S.Ct.
2685 (2011), he is entitled to relief even though his guidelines range was
determined by his career offender status. That argument is foreclosed by Lawson,
which held that Freeman, a decision that dealt with a defendant who entered into
Rule 11 plea agreement, did not overrule Moore and extend § 3582 relief to
defendants sentenced based on the career offender guidelines. Lawson, 686 F.3d at
320–21.
Hood is also not entitled to relief under the FSA because he was sentenced
in 2003. The FSA became effective on August 3, 2010. The FSA’s reduced
statutory penalties are applicable to those sentenced after the Act took effect, but
not to those sentenced beforehand. United States v. Berry, 701 F.3d 374, 377 (11th
Cir. 2012) (“The Supreme Court in Dorsey [v. United States, 567 U.S. —, 132
S.Ct. 2321 (2012)] carefully confined its application of the FSA to pre-Act
offenders who were sentenced after” that date.”).
AFFIRMED.
3