NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted May 2, 2012*
Decided May 2, 2012
Before
KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge
ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
No. 12-1106
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States District
Plaintiff-Appellee, Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
v. No. 06-CR-30111-01-WDS
JOHNNIE E. MOSLEY William D. Stiehl,
Defendant-Appellant. Judge.
ORDER
Johnnie Mosley appeals from the denial of his motion for a reduced sentence based
on a retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines, see 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Because
the amendment does not apply to Mosley, we affirm the judgment.
*
After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is
unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See FED. R. APP. P.
34(a)(2)(C).
No. 12-1106 Page 2
Mosley pleaded guilty in 2006 to being a felon in possession of a firearm,
see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and possession of crack cocaine with intent to deliver, see 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1). He was sentenced as a career offender, see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, to 262 months’
imprisonment. The Sentencing Commission later retroactively amended U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 to
lower the base offense levels for certain crack offenses, see U.S.S.G. app. C at 253 (2011)
(Amend. 713), and Mosley moved under § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence. The district
court denied the motion, concluding that Mosley’s status as a career offender made him
ineligible for a sentence reduction.
On appeal Mosley argues broadly that the Sentencing Commission should have
extended the reach of its amendment to include those sentenced under the career-offender
guideline. He also argues that the district court should have considered his post-sentencing
rehabilitation before denying his motion. But whatever the merits of Mosley’s arguments as
a policy matter, the district court lacked authority to reduce his sentence because it had
sentenced him based on his status as a career offender and not § 2D1.1. See United States v.
Guyton, 636 F.3d 316, 318 (7th Cir. 2011); United States v. Jackson, 573 F.3d 398, 399–400
(7th Cir. 2009); United States v. Forman, 553 F.3d 585, 589–90 (7th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.