Case: 15-11212 Date Filed: 12/10/2015 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-11212
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:08-cr-60208-JIC-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
STANLEY LAMOUR,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(December 10, 2015)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-11212 Date Filed: 12/10/2015 Page: 2 of 3
Stanley Lamour appeals the denial of his motion for a sentence reduction. 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Lamour sought a reduction under Amendment 782 to the
Sentencing Guidelines, but the district court ruled that Lamour, as a career
offender, was ineligible for a reduction. We affirm.
Lamour pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute one
kilogram or more of heroin. See 21 U.S.C. § 846. Lamour’s presentence
investigation report assigned him a base offense level of 37 because he qualified as
a career offender based on his two prior convictions for drug offenses, see United
States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1 (Nov. 2008), and reduced that level
by three points for his acceptance of responsibility, see id. § 3E1.1. With an
offense level of 34 and a criminal history of VI, see id. § 4B1.1, Lamour’s
presentence investigation report provided an advisory guideline range between 262
and 327 months of imprisonment. Lamour argued that his classification as a career
offender overstated his criminal conduct and asked for a downward variance based
on the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and his cooperation with
the government. The government stated that it was too early to move for a
reduction of sentence, see U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, but if it were to file such a motion, it
would request a reduction of 25 percent. The district court “grant[ed] a variance
based upon the proffer made by the government” and sentenced Lamour to 196
months of imprisonment.
2
Case: 15-11212 Date Filed: 12/10/2015 Page: 3 of 3
“This Court reviews de novo the district court’s legal conclusions regarding
its own authority under the Sentencing Guidelines.” United States v. Davis, 587
F.3d 1300, 1303 (11th Cir. 2009). A district court may reduce a term of
imprisonment only when the defendant’s guideline range is lowered by the
Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). Any reduction must be “consistent
with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission,” id.,
which preclude a “full resentencing of the defendant,” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(3);
see Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 831, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2694 (2010).
The district court did not err when it denied Lamour’s motion to reduce his
sentence. Because Lamour’s sentence is based on the career offender guideline,
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, not on the drug quantity tables, id. § 2D1.1, he is ineligible for a
sentence reduction under Amendment 782. See United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d
1317, 1321 (11th Cir. 2012); United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1327–30
(11th Cir. 2008). Lamour challenges his classification as a career offender on the
ground that one of his prior convictions no longer qualifies as a predicate offense
under the guidelines, but when considering a reduction of sentence “all original
sentencing determinations remain unchanged,” United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d
778, 781 (11th Cir. 2000). The district court lacked authority to reduce Lamour’s
sentence.
We AFFIRM the denial of Lamour’s motion to reduce.
3