[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-16231 MAY 19, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-80133-CR-JIC
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANTHONY DIGGS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(May 19, 2009)
Before CARNES, MARCUS, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Diggs, through counsel, appeals the district court’s order denying
his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction. Diggs’s motion was
based on Amendment 706 to the sentencing guidelines, which reduced the base
offense levels applicable to crack cocaine offenses. Diggs now concedes that he is
ineligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 706 because he was
sentenced as a career offender under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.1,
but he seeks to preserve his claim that the district court erred for further review.
As Diggs concedes, the district court did not err in denying his motion for
sentence reduction because he was sentenced as a career offender, and thus the
crack cocaine offense level played no ultimate role in his sentence. See United
States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir. 2008) (“Where a retroactively
applicable guideline amendment reduces a defendant’s base offense level, but does
not alter the sentencing range upon which his or her sentence was based,
§ 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a reduction in sentence. Here, 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).
AFFIRMED.
2