Case ID: f-appx_336/html/0900-01.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. George BURNS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-10700
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    July 8, 2009.
    Before TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

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

Burns argues that the district court was entitled to reduce his sentence because the ba‘se offense level for his underlying crack cocaine offenses has been altered by Amendment 706, but Burns acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir.2008). Burns was sentenced as a career offender. Burns argues that the district court had discretion to reduce his sentence below the amended range under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007), but those decisions do not apply to a motion to reduce a sentence. See United States v. Melvin, 556 F.3d 1190, 1191-93 (11th Cir.2009). The district court did not err by denying Burns’s motion.

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