Case: 13-12332 Date Filed: 12/06/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-12332
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:07-cr-00019-WLS-RLH-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
________________________
(December 6, 2013)
Before HULL, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-12332 Date Filed: 12/06/2013 Page: 2 of 3
Eddie Reed appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
motion to reduce sentence based on Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines.
After a thorough review, we affirm.
Reed was convicted in 2008 of two counts of crack-cocaine distribution, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(iii). At sentencing, the parties
stipulated that Reed was responsible for 74.7 total grams of crack cocaine. This
triggered a base-offense level of 30. Because he was classified as a career
offender, however, under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b) Reed’s adjusted offense level was
37 and his criminal-history category was VI. After adjustments under U.S.S.G.
§ 3E1.1(a) and (b), Reed’s total offense level was 34, and his resulting guidelines
range was 262 to 327 months’ imprisonment. At sentencing, after considering the
factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the district court imposed a term of
imprisonment of 262 months.
In February 2012, Reed filed a § 3582(c)(2) motion based on Amendment
750.1 The district court denied Reed’s motion, and this is his appeal.
“We review de novo a district court’s conclusions about the scope of its legal
authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).” United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317,
1319 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 568 (2012). We have previously held
1
Although Reed initially filed his § 3582(c)(2) motion pro se, he was appointed counsel, who
supplemented the motion with additional briefing. Reed has also previously filed a § 3582(c)(2)
motion based on Amendment 706, which the district court denied and declined to reconsider.
The appeal now before us does not concern his arguments related to that amendment.
2
Case: 13-12332 Date Filed: 12/06/2013 Page: 3 of 3
defendants sentenced as career offenders under § 4B1.1, like Reed, are not entitled
to a reduction under Amendment 750. United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323,
1327 (11th Cir. 2008). Reed contends he is entitled to a reduction, even as a career
offender, because Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (2011) (plurality
opinion), undermines the holding of Moore. We have, however, previously
rejected this contention. Lawson, 686 F.3d at 1319-21. And we are bound by that
ruling, and, thus, by Moore, unless and until it is overruled by the Supreme Court
or this court sitting en banc. Id. at 1319. For this reason, we must also reject
Reed’s contention that he is entitled to a reduction in his sentence under the Fair
Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA), Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372. In United
States v. Berry, 701 F.3d 374, 377 (11th Cir. 2012), we held that a defendant was
not entitled to a reduction in his sentence under the FSA when he was sentenced
before the FSA’s effective date, August 3, 2010. We are bound by that decision
and must apply it to bar Reed’s claim because he was sentenced before that date.
For these reasons, the district court was correct to deny Reed’s § 3582(c)(2)
motion.
AFFIRMED.
3