[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 8, 2009
No. 08-17252 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-14074-CR-JEM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MACK CHARLES WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(June 8, 2009)
Before BARKETT, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Mack Charles Williams appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a
reduced sentence, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Williams’s §
3582(c)(2) motion was based on Amendment 706 to the United States Sentencing
Guidelines, which reduced base offense levels applicable to crack cocaine.
Williams argues that the district court erred as a matter of law in denying his
motion for a reduced sentence because he was sentenced as a career offender.
Williams concedes that the issue he raises on appeal is controlled by our decision
in United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1327 (11th Cir. 2008), cert. denied,
McFadden v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 965 (2009), and cert. denied, (U.S. Mar. 9,
2009) (No. 08-8554), but he argues that Moore was wrongly decided as the
sentencing guidelines are fully advisory, even in § 3582 proceedings.
The district court did not err in denying Williams’s § 3582(c)(2) motion
because he was sentenced as a career offender. Moore, 541 F.3d at 1330 (holding
that a district court lacks authority under § 3582(c)(2) to reduce a defendant’s
sentence when the defendant was sentenced under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 as a career
offender). Additionally, Williams’s argument that the sentencing guidelines are
fully advisory, even in § 3582 proceedings, is also foreclosed by precedent. See
United States v. Melvin, 556 F.3d 1190, 1192-93 (11th Cir. 2009) (holding that
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) does not “prohibit the limitations on
a judge’s discretion in reducing a sentence imposed by § 3582(c)(2) and the
2
applicable policy statement by the Sentencing Commission”), petition for cert.
filed, (U.S. Feb. 10, 2009) (No. 08-8664). Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3