[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-17126 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 29, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 06-00326-CR-LSC-HGD
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GERALD SMITH, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
_________________________
(May 29, 2009)
Before CARNES, MARCUS and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Gerald Smith, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s denial of his
motion for a sentence reduction, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), and based
on Amendment 706 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which reduced base
offense levels applicable to crack cocaine offenses. On appeal, Smith acknowledges
that he was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, but contends that
he was nevertheless eligible for a sentence reduction in light of Amendment 706.
After careful review, we affirm.
“In a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding, we review de novo the district court’s legal
conclusions regarding the scope of its authority under the Sentencing Guidelines” as
well as all “questions of statutory interpretation.” United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d
1323, 1326 (11th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, McFadden v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 965
(2009), and cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 1601 (2009) (quotation marks and citations
omitted).
Under § 3582(c)(2), a district court may reduce the sentence 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).
In Moore, we held that, if the defendant was sentenced as a career offender under §
4B1.1 and the range was not affected by U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, then his sentence is not
“based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered.” 541 F.3d at
1327-28. We have also held that a defendant is not entitled to a § 3582(c)(2)
2
reduction by virtue of the advisory nature of the guidelines. United States v. Jones,
548 F.3d 1366, 1369 (11th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 1657 (2009).
There is no merit to Smith’s argument that the district court incorrectly
determined that it was not authorized to reduce Smith’s sentence. First, just as in
Moore, Smith’s sentencing range was determined by his career-offender status under
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, and his crack cocaine base offense level played no role in his
ultimate sentence. Thus, Smith was not sentenced under the otherwise applicable
base offense level set forth in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, and he is ineligible for relief under
Amendment 706. See Moore, 541 F.3d at 1327-28, 1330; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10,
comment. (n.1(A)) (prohibiting reduction where “amendment does not have the effect
of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range because of the operation of
another guideline”). Second, the district court did not have authority to reduce
Smith’s sentence by virtue of the advisory nature of the guidelines. Jones, 548 F.3d
at 1369. Third, because Smith’s guideline range did not change, the court was not
required to consider the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See United States v. Webb, __
F.3d __, No. 08-13405, manuscript op. at 6 (11th Cir. Apr. 13, 2009) (“Given that
[defendant’s] sentencing range did not change, the district court correctly recognized
that it had no authority under § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence and that it did not
need to examine the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.”). Finally, to the extent Smith
3
contends that his sentence was unreasonable, his argument is outside the scope of the
present § 3582 proceeding. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (limiting proceedings under
this statute to cases where a retroactive amendment affects the applicable guideline
range).
AFFIRMED.
4