Case: 16-10050 Date Filed: 08/04/2016 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-10050
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:09-cr-00416-WTM-GRS-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES BERNARD JONES, JR.,
a.k.a. Eric Bernard Lloyd,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(August 4, 2016)
Before HULL, MARCUS, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 16-10050 Date Filed: 08/04/2016 Page: 2 of 4
James Jones, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his
motion to reduce his sentence, which was filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2),
based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. After review of the record
and the parties’ briefs, we affirm.
Mr. Jones pled guilty to the distribution of an unspecified quantity of crack
cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. According to the PSI, Mr. Jones’ base
offense level was 30, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, but was set at 32 because Mr.
Jones was a career offender. The career offender designation was based on (1) his
instant controlled substance offense and (2) his two prior convictions for crimes of
violence. See U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.1 & 4B1.2. After a 3-level reduction for acceptance
of responsibility, Mr. Jones’ total offense level was 29.
At sentencing, the district court recalculated Mr. Jones’ base offense level
for the narcotics offense to 16. In the court’s opinion, it would be unfair to
calculate Mr. Jones’ advisory guidelines range based on crack cocaine because the
initial drug he offered for sale was powder cocaine, and he only cooked the powder
cocaine into crack at the request of an informant. The substitution of the type of
drug, however, did not alter Mr. Jones’ career offender enhancement, which meant
that the base offense level remained at 32, and, with the 3-level reduction for
acceptance, the total offense level remained at 29. Mr. Jones’ advisory sentencing
2
Case: 16-10050 Date Filed: 08/04/2016 Page: 3 of 4
range with the career offender enhancement was 151–181 months’ imprisonment.
The district court imposed a sentence of 160 months’ imprisonment.
In Amendment 782, the Sentencing Commission retroactively reduced the
offense levels in § 2D1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines by two levels. After the
enactment of Amendment 782, the district court sua sponte examined Mr. Jones’
sentence for a possible reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). But it denied
the reduction, finding that Amendment 782 did not alter Mr. Jones’ sentencing
range, which was controlled by the career offender guideline.
On appeal, Mr. Jones argues that the district court erred by denying him a
sentence reduction in light of Amendment 782. We review a district court’s
conclusions about the scope of its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2) de novo.
United States v. Colon, 707 F.3d 1255, 1258 (11th Cir. 2013).
A district court may modify a defendant’s term of imprisonment if the
defendant was sentenced based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been
lowered by the Sentencing Commission. See § 3582(c)(2). A district court is not
authorized to reduce a defendant’s sentence under § 3582(c)(2) where a
retroactively applicable guideline amendment reduces his base offense level, but
does not alter the guidelines range upon which his sentence was based. See United
States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir. 2008). Specifically, when a drug
offender is sentenced under the career offender guideline in § 4B1.1, the guidelines
3
Case: 16-10050 Date Filed: 08/04/2016 Page: 4 of 4
range upon which his sentence is based is calculated from § 4B1.1, not § 2D1.1.
See United States v. Lawson, 541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir. 2008). Because an
amendment to § 2D1.1 does not affect a career offender’s guidelines range, Mr.
Jones is ineligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2).
We affirm the district court’s denial of a sentence reduction to Mr. Jones
under § 3582(c)(2).
AFFIRMED.
4