[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JULY 8, 2009
No. 09-10700 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 03-20387-CR-ASG
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GEORGE BURNS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(July 8, 2009)
Before TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
George Burns appeals the denial of his motion for a reduced sentence. 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Burns’s motion was based on Amendment 706 to the
Guidelines. We affirm.
Burns argues that the district court was entitled to reduce his sentence
because the base offense level for his underlying crack cocaine offenses has been
altered by Amendment 706, but Burns acknowledges that his argument is
foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th
Cir. 2008). Burns was sentenced as a career offender. Burns argues that the
district court had discretion to reduce his sentence below the amended range under
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and Kimbrough v.
United States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007), but those decisions do not apply to a motion
to reduce a sentence. See United States v. Melvin, 556 F.3d 1190, 1191–93 (11th
Cir. 2009). The district court did not err by denying Burns’s motion.
The denial of Burns’s motion for a reduced sentence is AFFIRMED.
2