Case ID: f-appx_608/html/0889-01.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. Billy CLEVELAND, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-15296
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    June 15, 2015.
    Wifredo A. Ferrer, Jeanne Marie Mul-lenhoff, Kathleen Mary Salyer, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, Lynn D. Ro-senthal, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Billy Cleveland, Coleman, FL, pro se.
    Before'WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Billy Cleveland appeals pro se the denial of his motion for a sentence reduction. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Cleveland based his motion on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.

The district court did not err when it denied Cleveland’s motion for a reduction of his sentence. Cleveland, whose sentence is based on the career offender guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, not on the drug quantity tables, id. § 2D1.1, is ineligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782. See United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir.2012); United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1327-30 (11th Cir.2008). Cleveland challenges his classification as a career offender, but that challenge is outside the limited scope of section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780-81 (11th Cir.2000).

We AFFIRM the denial of Cleveland’s motion to reduce.