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[DO NOT PUBLISH]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