Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-10016/USCOURTS-ca11-15-10016-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Patrick Funchess
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-10016

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:08-cr-60235-JIC-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

PATRICK FUNCHESS, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(July 30, 2015)

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

USCA11 Case: 15-10016 Date Filed: 07/30/2015 Page: 1 of 2
2

Patrick Funchess, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his

motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Funchess 

argues the district court erred in denying his motion because he is entitled to a 

reduction under Amendment 782 of the Sentencing Guidelines, U.S.S.G. App. C, 

amend. 782. Upon review, we affirm.1

 “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.” United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir. 2008); see also 

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) (stating a reduction is not authorized if the amendment 

“does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range”). 

Funchess’s applicable guidelines range was determined by the career-offender 

guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a), not the drug quantity table, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). 

Since Amendment 782 amended the drug quantity table, and not the careeroffender guideline upon which Funchess’s sentence was based, § 3582(c)(2) relief 

is not available to Funchess under Amendment 782. The district court therefore 

did not err in denying the motion for a sentence reduction.

AFFIRMED.

 1

 We review de novo a district’s court’s legal conclusions as to the scope of its authority 

under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Phillips, 597 F.3d 1190, 1194 n.9 (11th Cir. 2010).

USCA11 Case: 15-10016 Date Filed: 07/30/2015 Page: 2 of 2