Case: 12-15845 Date Filed: 03/31/2014 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-15845
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:08-cr-00001-DHB-WLB-20
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HASSAN BEASLEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(March 31, 2014)
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and COX, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-15845 Date Filed: 03/31/2014 Page: 2 of 3
Hassan Beasley, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, appeals the district
court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2). Beasley pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine and
other drugs. He then faced a sentence guideline range of 151 to 188 months’
imprisonment based on his status as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.
The district court sentenced him to 130 months in prison. Beasley contends that he
now is eligible for a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendments 750 and 759 of
the Sentencing Guidelines—which amended how quantities of drugs are calculated
under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1—notwithstanding the fact that his guideline range was
determined based on the career offender provision in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Because
these amendments did not alter Beasley’s sentencing range, we affirm the district
court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction.
We review the district court’s legal conclusions regarding the scope of its
authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) de novo. United States v. James, 548 F.3d
983, 984 (11th Cir. 2008).
“As a general rule, district courts may not modify a term of imprisonment
once it has been imposed, except in specific circumstances delineated in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c).” United States v. Williams, 549 F.3d 1337, 1339 (11th Cir. 2008).
Pursuant to § 3582(c)(2), the court is allowed to reduce a defendant’s prison term if
the defendant was “sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing
2
Case: 12-15845 Date Filed: 03/31/2014 Page: 3 of 3
range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1). However, “[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 guideline range”).
Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines lowered some of the drug-
quantity calculations used under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. But, Beasley’s sentencing
range was calculated under the career-offender guideline in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.1
Accordingly, Amendment 750 did not alter the sentencing range upon which his
sentence was based, and § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a reduction in sentence.
See Moore, 541 F.3d at 1330.
For these reasons, the district court did not err in denying Beasley’s
§ 3582(c)(2) motion, and we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
1
Beasley contends the district court actually used the sentencing range under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1
because the court chose a downward departure from the sentencing range under U.S.S.G. §
4B1.1. We find no merit in this contention. The court chose a downward departure from the
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 sentencing range. If the U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 sentencing range applied, the
court’s sentence would instead be an upward departure.
3