Case ID: f-appx_323/html/0750-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph Lee HOLMES, Jr., a.k.a. Joseph Lee Holmes, a.k.a. Joseph L. Holmes, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-14584
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    April 16, 2009.
    Peggy Morris Ronca, Orlando, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Rosemary T. Cakmis, Donna Lee Elm, Federal Public Defender, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before BIRCH, HULL and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Joseph Lee Holmes Jr. appeals the denial of his motion for a reduced sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Holmes’s motion was based on Amendment 706 to the Guidelines. We affirm.

“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. James, 548 F.3d 983, 984 (11th Cir.2008) (per curiam). A district court may modify a term of imprisonment in the case of a defendant who was sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

The district court did not err. Amendment 706 did not have the effect of lowering Holmes’s sentencing range. Holmes was ineligible for a sentence reduction. See United States v. Moore, 541 F.Bd 1328, 1330 (11th Cir.2008) (“Where a retroactively applicable guideline amendment reduces a defendant’s base offense level, but does not alter the sentencing range upon which his or her sentence was based, § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a reduction in sentence.”). We affirm the denial of Holmes’s motion.

AFFIRMED.