Case: 11-15679 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-15679
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:05-cr-60098-WPD-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM MOYO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 13, 2012)
Before MARCUS, PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
William Moyo appeals the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence. 18
Case: 11-15679 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 2 of 3
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We affirm.
In September 2009, Moyo pleaded guilty to distributing and possessing with
intent to distribute five or more grams of crack cocaine. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a).
Because Moyo was responsible 49.5 grams of crack cocaine and was a career
offender, his presentence investigation report provided an offense level of 34,
United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1(b) (Nov. 2008), and then
reduced that level by three points for Moyo’s acceptance of responsibility, id.
§ 3E1.1. With a criminal history category of VI, the report provided an advisory
guideline range between 188 and 235 months of imprisonment.
At Moyo’s sentencing hearing, the parties agreed that Moyo should be
sentenced as if his offense involved powder cocaine, which would lower Moyo’s
total offense level to 29 and subject him to a guideline range between 151 and 188
months of imprisonment. The district court accepted the recommendation to apply
the lower offense level and sentenced Moyo to 151 months of imprisonment.
On November 8, 2011, Moyo moved to reduce his sentence. 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2). Moyo argued that he was entitled to a two-level reduction of his
offense level under unspecified “amendments” to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010
that altered the offense levels in Section 2D1.1 applicable to crack cocaine
offenses. Moyo argued that he had not received the full benefit intended by the
2
Case: 11-15679 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 3 of 3
Act and that the Act “should . . . apply to career offenders that are charged with
cocaine an[d]/or crack offenses.”
The district court denied Moyo’s motion to reduce. The district court ruled
that “USSG § 1B1.1 only allows a reduction for Amendment 750 where the
original sentence was derived from USSG § 2D1.1 and not the career offender
provision, USSG § 4B1.1.”
Moyo argues, for the first time on appeal, that he was entitled to a reduction
of sentence under Amendment 706, but that provision, which became effective in
November 2007, was not a “subsequent” amendment under section 3582(c)(2).
The district court did not err.
The denial of Moyo’s motion to reduce is AFFIRMED.
3