Case: 15-12693 Date Filed: 04/04/2016 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-12693
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-20727-WJZ-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL ALI BRYANT, SR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 4, 2016)
Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-12693 Date Filed: 04/04/2016 Page: 2 of 3
Michael Ali Bryant, Sr. appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction. Bryant seeks a reduction under
Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court held that Bryant
is ineligible for relief under Amendment 782 because he was originally sentenced
as a career offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. On appeal, Bryant argues that
he was sentenced under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1—not § 4B1.1—and therefore the district
court erred. Alternatively, he asserts that he is eligible for a reduction based on
Amendment 782 because he was erroneously sentenced as a career offender. Both
arguments fail.
First, the original sentencing court clearly sentenced Bryant pursuant to §
4B1.1. During his sentencing hearing, Bryant admitted—and the court
acknowledged—that § 4B1.1 governed his sentence. Moreover, the court adopted
the guidelines calculations from Bryant’s Presentence Investigation Report, and
those calculations were explicitly based on § 4B1.1.
Second, under the present procedural posture, Bryant cannot challenge the
sentencing court’s decision to sentence him as a career offender. Section
3582(c)(2) only “permits a sentence reduction within the narrow bounds
established by” the Sentencing Commission. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S.
817, 831, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2694 (2010). “In making [a § 3582(c)(2)]
determination, the court shall substitute only the amendments . . . for the
2
Case: 15-12693 Date Filed: 04/04/2016 Page: 3 of 3
corresponding guideline provisions that were applied when the defendant was
sentenced and shall leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected.”
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1) (emphasis added). Amendment 782 does not have any
bearing on the guidelines’ career offender provisions. See U.S.S.G. App. C,
amend. 782. Thus, the sentencing court’s career offender decision is “outside the
scope of the proceeding authorized by § 3582(c)(2).” See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 831,
130 S. Ct. at 2694.
AFFIRMED.
3