[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-15371 MAY 20, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 04-00028-CR-1-SPM/AK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
VINCENT KEITH RAINES,
a.k.a. Silk,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(May 20, 2009)
Before DUBINA, HULL and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Vincent Keith Raines, proceeding pro se, appeals the district
court’s denial of his pro se motion for a reduced sentence, which he filed pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Raines based his motion on Amendment 706 to the
Sentencing Guidelines, which reduced base offense levels applicable to crack
cocaine offenses. The district court denied Raines’s § 3582(c)(2) motion, finding
that he was ineligible for a reduction because he was sentenced as a career offender
under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, such that Amendment 706 did not lower the guideline
range pursuant to which he was sentenced. On appeal, Raines submits that the
district court erred in determining that he was not eligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief
because his sentence was based on his guideline range calculated under U.S.S.G. §
2D1.1.
“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 subsequently was lowered by the Sentencing Commission.
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Any reduction, however, must be “consistent with
applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” Id. The
applicable policy statements, found in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, state that a sentence
reduction is not authorized under § 3582(c)(2) if “[a]n amendment listed in
2
subsection (c) does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable
guideline range.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). The commentary elaborates that a
reduction is not authorized if an applicable amendment does not lower a
defendant’s applicable guideline range “because of the operation of another
guideline.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(A)).
Because the district court sentenced Raines as a career offender under
§ 4B1.1, we conclude that the crack cocaine base offense level played no ultimate
role in his sentence, and therefore, the district court correctly determined that he
was not eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10,
comment. (n.1(A)); United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir. 2008)
(holding that the district court was not authorized to grant § 3582(c)(2) reductions
because, “although Amendment 706 would reduce the base offense levels
applicable to the defendants, it would not affect their guideline ranges because they
were sentenced as career offenders under § 4B1.1”), cert. denied, McFadden v.
United States, 129 S. Ct. 965 (2009), and cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 1601 (2009).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying Raines’s motion
for a reduced sentence.
AFFIRMED.
3