Case: 12-13652 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-13652
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:96-cr-00085-RV-SMN-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FRITZ MAJOR,
a.k.a. Fritz Casmir,
a.k.a. James,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(March 20, 2013)
Before CARNES, HULL, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-13652 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 2 of 4
Fritz Major was convicted by a jury of one count of conspiring to possess
with intent to distribute cocaine and crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§
841(b)(1)(A)(ii), (b)(1)(A)(iii), and 846, and one count of possessing with intent to
distribute crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii). The
presentence investigation report initially concluded that Major was responsible for
2.7 kilograms of crack cocaine, resulting in a base offense level of 38. See United
States Sentencing Guidelines § 2D.1.1(c) (Nov. 1997). A handwritten amendment
to the PSI reduced that amount from 2.7 kilograms to between 1 and 1.5 kilograms,
resulting in a base offense level of 36. See id. The PSI also concluded that Major
was a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. At sentencing, the district court
concluded that Major was responsible for 1 to 1.5 kilograms of crack cocaine,
which would have made his base offense level 36. See id. § 2D1.1(c). But
because Major was a career offender, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 applied, resulting in a base
offense level of 37 and a criminal history category of VI. See id. § 4B1.1. The
result was a guidelines range of 360 months to life imprisonment. The court
sentenced Major to 364 months imprisonment.
Major filed a pro se motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2), contending that Amendment 750 to the guidelines reduced his
guidelines range. The district court denied that motion, concluding that
2
Case: 12-13652 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 3 of 4
Amendment 750 did not have the effect of lowering Major’s guidelines range
because he was sentenced as a career offender. This is Major’s appeal.
We review de novo a district court’s conclusions about the scope of its legal
authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323,
1326 (11th Cir. 2008). “Where a retroactively applicable guideline amendment
reduces a defendant’s base offense level, but does not alter the [career offender]
sentencing range upon which his or her sentence was based, § 3582(c)(2) does not
authorize a reduction in sentence.” Id. at 1330. While Amendment 750 reduced
the base offense levels for crack cocaine offenses, it did not alter the sentencing
range upon which Major’s sentence was based because he was sentenced under the
career offender guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. For that reason, Moore controls.
See also United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir. 2012) (“Moore
remains binding precedent because it has not been overruled.”).
Major also argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon v. United
States, 560 U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 2683 (2010), was wrongly decided because it allows
the Sentencing Commission to strip the district court of its discretion to lower his
sentence based on the particular facts of his case. Right or wrong, we are bound to
follow the Supreme Court’s interpretation of federal law in Dillon, 130 S.Ct. at
2691, which recognized the Sentencing Commission’s authority to decide in what
circumstances and by what amount a prisoner’s sentence may be reduced in a §
3
Case: 12-13652 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 4 of 4
3582(c)(2) proceeding. See McGinley v. Houston, 361 F.3d 1328, 1331 (11th Cir.
2004).
AFFIRMED.
4