[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-10085 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 22, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 0:07-cr-60007-FAM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL ANTHONY PHILLIPS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(June 22, 2010)
Before MARCUS, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Phillips appeals pro se the denial of his motion to reduce his
sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Phillips’s motion was based on Amendment
706 to the Guidelines. We affirm.
The district court did not err by denying Phillips’s motion. Phillips is not
eligible for a reduction of sentence because he is a career offender. United States
v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir. 2008). Phillips challenges his
classification as a career offender, but in determining eligibility for a reduction of
sentence, “all original sentencing determinations remain unchanged.” United
States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 781 (11th Cir. 2000). Amendment 706 did not have
the effect of lowering Phillips’s sentencing range. Moore, 541 F.3d at 1327–28.
The denial of Phillips’s motion for a reduced sentence is AFFIRMED.
2