Case: 12-10226 Date Filed: 07/24/2012 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-10226
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:08-cr-80096-DTKH-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOE L. ADAMS,
a.k.a. Preacher,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 24, 2012)
Before PRYOR, FAY and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-10226 Date Filed: 07/24/2012 Page: 2 of 3
Joe Adams appeals the denial of his motion for a reduced sentence. 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Adams contends that he is entitled to a reduced sentence
under Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which was promulgated after
Congress enacted the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat.
2372 (2010). The district court ruled that Adams was ineligible for a reduced
sentence because he had been sentenced as a career offender. Adams contends
that the decision of the Supreme Court in Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct.
2685, 2695 (2011), abrogated our decision in United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d
1323 (11th Cir. 2008), regarding whether a defendant sentenced as a career
offender is eligible for a reduced sentence. We affirm.
We review de novo a decision that a movant is ineligible for a reduced
sentence. Id. at 1326.
The district court did not err when it denied Adams’s motion. Adams was
ineligible for a reduced sentence because Amendment 750 did not lower his
guideline range. See id. at 1330. Adams was sentenced as a career offender,
United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1 (Nov. 2008), and was
ineligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 750. See Moore, 541 F.3d at
1327–28, 1330. Moreover, the district court was not permitted to consider
whether Adams’s designation as a career offender was erroneous. See United
2
Case: 12-10226 Date Filed: 07/24/2012 Page: 3 of 3
States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780–81 (11th Cir. 2000). Adams was not sentenced
based on an offense level that was higher than the otherwise applicable offense
level for career offenders, and he did not receive a departure, U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3,
that might have provided him with a sentencing range that could have been
affected by Amendment 750.
Adams’s argument about Freeman is meritless. In Freeman, the Supreme
Court decided a case arising from a plea agreement that allowed the government
and defendant to agree to a term or range of imprisonment, and present the plea
agreement to the district court for acceptance or rejection, but not alteration. See
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C). The Supreme Court held that, under section 3582
and Rule 11(c)(1)(C), the sentence can be said to be “based on” the Sentencing
Guidelines, and eligible for a later reduction, if the express terms of the plea
agreement provide that the sentence is set by a sentencing range, applicable to the
charged offense, to establish the term of imprisonment. In contrast, Adams was
sentenced as a career offender, which renders him ineligible for a reduced
sentence.
AFFIRMED.
3