[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-16384 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APRIL 20, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 06-20057-CR-PCH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RONALD DELANCY,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(April 20, 2009)
Before BLACK, BARKETT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Delancy appeals from the denial of his motion for a reduced
sentence, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 706 to the
Sentencing Guidelines, which reduced the base offense levels applicable to crack
cocaine found in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. On appeal, Delancy, who was sentenced under
the career offender guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, concedes that our precedent
forecloses his argument, but, in order to preserve the issue, argues that the district
court erred in denying his motion. After thorough review, we affirm.
“We review de novo a district court’s conclusions about the scope of its
legal authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).” United States v. James, 548 F.3d
983, 984 (11th Cir. 2008).
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 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, comment. (n.1(A)).
As Delancy concedes, his argument is foreclosed by precedent. We recently
held that, “[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), cert.
2
denied, McFadden v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 965 (2009), and cert. denied, __ S.
Ct. __ (U.S. Mar. 9, 2009) (No. 08-8554). Because Delancy’s sentencing range
was calculated under the career-offender provisions in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, rather
than the drug quantity table in § 2D1.1, Amendment 706 did not have the effect of
lowering Delancy’s sentencing range, and, thus, he was ineligible for a sentence
reduction. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3