[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
NOVEMBER 23, 2009
No. 09-12910 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 00-00318-CR-BAE-4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WATSON DIXON, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
_________________________
(November 23, 2009)
Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Watson Dixon appeals the denial of his motion for a reduced sentence. 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Dixon’s motion was based on Amendments 706 and 599 to
the Guidelines. We affirm.
Dixon challenges the denial of his motion on three grounds, but his
arguments fail. First, Dixon acknowledges that he was sentenced as a career
offender, United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir. 2008), but he
argues that he falls within an exception to Moore because his prior convictions
were for “low-level, non-violent, small time drug offenses.” Regardless of how
Dixon classifies his crimes, Amendment 706 did not have the effect of lowering his
sentencing range. Second, Dixon argues that the district court had the 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). Third, Dixon
argues that the district court should have applied Amendment 599, but that
Amendment became effective before Dixon was sentenced.
The denial of Dixon’s motion for a reduced sentence is AFFIRMED.
2