Case ID: f-appx_383/html/0931-01.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. Michael Anthony PHILLIPS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-10085
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    June 22, 2010.
    Anne Schultz, Assistant U.S. Attorney, United States Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, Jeffrey Sloman, U.S. Attorney, West Palm Beach, FL, Robin Waugh-Farretta, United States Attorney’s Office, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Michael Anthony Phillips, Miami, FL, pro se.
    Before MARCUS, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Michael Phillips appeals pro se the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Phillips’s motion was based on Amendment 706 to the Guidelines. We affirm.

The district court did not err by denying Phillips’s motion. Phillips is not eligible for a reduction of sentence because he is a career offender. United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir.2008). Phillips challenges his classification as a career offender, but in determining eligibility for a reduction of sentence, “all original sentencing determinations remain unchanged.” United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 781 (11th Cir.2000). Amendment 706 did not have the effect of lowering Phillips’s sentencing range. Moore, 541 F.3d at 1327-28.

The denial of Phillips’s motion for a reduced sentence is AFFIRMED.