Case ID: f-appx_624/html/0720-01.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 Deshawn ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-12483
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Dec. 2, 2015.
    Ramona Albin, Michael B. Billingsley, John B. Felton, Alice H. Martin, Joyce White Vance, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Birmingham, AL, Austin D. Shutt, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
    Michael Deshawn Anderson, Beaumont, TX, pro se.
    Before JORDAN, JULIE CARNES and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Michael Deshawn Anderson, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) motion for a reduced sentence based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. After review, we affirm.

The sentencing court explicitly determined that Anderson was a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines. Therefore, Anderson’s offense level remains unchanged even after the application of Amendment 782. Because Amendment 782 did not have the effect of lowering Anderson’s guideline range, no reduction in sentence is authorized. See 18 U.S.C., § 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a)(2)(B), p.s.; Moore, 541 F.3d at 1330 (holding that where a defendant has been sentenced as a career offender and the offense level in the drug quantity table did not play a role in.the calculation of the guideline range, no reduction is authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)).

The sentencing court denied Anderson’s motion for a downward departure but chose to vary Anderson’s sentence below the guideline range after considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. There is no indication that the sentencing court considered the drug quantity table when it varied Anderson’s- sentence. C.f. Moore, 541 F.3d at 1330 (Where there is no “indication that the court based [the defendant’s] sentence- on the guideline range that would have applied -absent the career offender designation ... there is no basis for concluding that the reduction- of [the defendant’s] base offense level lowered the sentencing range relied upon by the district court in determining his sentence.”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
      . "In a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding, we review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions regarding the scope of its authority under the Sentencing Guidelines.’’ United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1326 (11th Cir.2008) (quotation omitted).