Case: 12-13934 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-13934
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:92-cr-03057-LC-EMT-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CASWELL A. CRAWFORD,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(June 28, 2013)
Before HULL, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-13934 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 2 of 4
Caswell A. Crawford, a federal prisoner convicted of a crack cocaine
offense, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for
a sentence reduction. Crawford’s § 3582(c)(2) motion was based on Amendments
706 and 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which revised the crack cocaine
quantity tables in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). See U.S.S.G. app. C, amends. 706, 750.
The district court denied the § 3582(c)(2) motion because, due to Crawford’s status
as a career offender, Amendment 750 had no effect on his applicable guidelines
range. After review, we affirm. 1
Pursuant to § 3582(c)(2), the 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. [§] 994(o).” 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”).
1
We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions regarding the scope of its
authority under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1326 (11th Cir. 2008).
2
Case: 12-13934 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 3 of 4
A sentence reduction is not authorized if the amendment does not lower the
defendant’s applicable guidelines range “because of the operation of another
guideline or statutory provision.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A). As such, when
a crack cocaine defendant is sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G.
§ 4B1.1, rather than under § 2D1.1(c)’s drug quantity table, the defendant is not
eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction based on amendments to the crack cocaine
offense levels in § 2D1.1(c) because the amendments did not lower the sentencing
range upon which the defendant’s sentence was based. See Moore, 541 F.3d at
1327-28.
Here, the district court did not err in denying Crawford’s § 3582(c)(2)
motion because Crawford’s sentencing range of 360 months to life remains the
same even after Amendments 706 and 750.
At his sentencing, Crawford was held accountable for 5 kilograms of crack
cocaine. Using the drug quantity table, Crawford’s base offense level was 40
under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(2) (1991). However, Crawford was designated a career
offender. Under the career offender provision, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, Crawford’s base
offense level was 37 and his criminal history category was VI. See U.S.S.G.
§ 4B1.1(A) (1991). Following § 4B1.1’s instructions, the district court applied the
greater offense level—level 40 under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(2)—with the criminal
history category of VI, resulting in a guidelines range of 360 months to life
3
Case: 12-13934 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 4 of 4
imprisonment. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 (1991). The district court ultimately
imposed a 420-month sentence.
Had Amendments 706 and 750 been in effect at Crawford’s original
sentencing, his base offense level (for 5 kilograms of cocaine base) would have
been 36, instead of 40. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(2) (2012).2 However, because
Crawford is a career offender, pursuant to § 4B1.1, the district court would have
applied the greater offense level, which would have been the career offender
offense level of 37. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b)(1). An offense level of 37 and a
criminal history category of VI yields a guidelines range of 360 months to life, the
same range that actually applied at Crawford’s original sentencing. See U.S.S.G.
Sentencing Table, ch. 5, pt. A. Thus, Amendments 705 and 750 did not lower
Crawford’s sentencing range, and, under our precedent in Moore, the district court
lacked authority under § 3582(c)(2) to reduce Crawford’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.
2
The record does not support Crawford’s claim that his total offense level would be 35
because of an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction. At his original sentencing, the district
court denied Crawford’s request for an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction. To the extent
Crawford argues he now is entitled to such a reduction, that argument is outside the scope of a
§ 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1) (instructing district court to substitute
only the amended guidelines provision and “leave all other guideline application decisions
unaffected”); United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 782 (11th Cir. 2000) (stating that a
§ 3582(c)(2) does not grant the court jurisdiction to consider extraneous resentencing issues).
4