[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-16400 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APRIL 20, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 06-00005-CR-OC-10-GRJ
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
STEVEN ANGELO MCDUFFIE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(April 20, 2009)
Before BLACK, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Steven Angelo McDuffie, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s denial of his motion for a reduced sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2). His motion was based on Amendment 706 to the Sentencing
Guidelines, which reduced the base offense levels applicable to crack cocaine
offenses. On appeal, McDuffie argues the district court erred by denying his
motion based on its finding that he was sentenced as a career offender, and it
should have considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in evaluating
his motion.
“In a proceeding to modify a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), we
review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions regarding the scope of its
authority under the Sentencing Guidelines.” United States v. White, 305 F.3d
1264, 1267 (11th Cir. 2002). A district court may modify a term of imprisonment
in the case of a defendant who was sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a
sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The Sentencing Commission has noted,
however, that a defendant is ineligible for a sentence reduction where an
“amendment does not have the effect of lowering [his] applicable guideline range
because of the operation of another guideline or statutory provision.” U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A).
2
McDuffie’s arguments on appeal are foreclosed by precedent. See United
States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding that a defendant
sentenced as a career offender, whose Guidelines range is not affected by
Amendment 706, is not eligible for sentence reductions), cert. denied, McFadden
v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 965 (2009), and cert. denied, __ S. Ct. __, No. 08-
8554, 2009 WL 301854 (U.S. Mar. 9, 2009); United States v. Moreno, 421 F.3d
1217, 1220-21 (11th Cir. 2005) (holding that Booker does not provide an
independent jurisdictional basis for an ineligible defendant to receive a reduction).
Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3