United States v. Patrick Funchess

Case: 15-10016 Date Filed: 07/30/2015 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 15-10016 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 0:08-cr-60235-JIC-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PATRICK FUNCHESS, Defendant - Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (July 30, 2015) Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 15-10016 Date Filed: 07/30/2015 Page: 2 of 2 Patrick Funchess, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Funchess argues the district court erred in denying his motion because he is entitled to a reduction under Amendment 782 of the Sentencing Guidelines, U.S.S.G. App. C, amend. 782. Upon review, we affirm. 1 “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.” United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir. 2008); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) (stating a reduction is not authorized if the amendment “does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range”). Funchess’s applicable guidelines range was determined by the career-offender guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a), not the drug quantity table, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). Since Amendment 782 amended the drug quantity table, and not the career- offender guideline upon which Funchess’s sentence was based, § 3582(c)(2) relief is not available to Funchess under Amendment 782. The district court therefore did not err in denying the motion for a sentence reduction. AFFIRMED. 1 We review de novo a district’s court’s legal conclusions as to the scope of its authority under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Phillips, 597 F.3d 1190, 1194 n.9 (11th Cir. 2010). 2