The Honor able Micha el H. Watson, United States District Judge for the Souther n District * of Ohio, sitting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 10a0473n.06 No. 09-5383 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. F RA NKL I N D ELAN O JEN KI

NS, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt.

______________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E WE STE RN DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY
O P I N I O N

Before: G ILMAN and WHIT E, Circuit Judges; and WAT SON, District Judge. * MICHAEL H. WATSO N, Distric t Judge. Def endant Fr anklin J enkins appe als the district court’s or der de nying a

reduc tion in a cra ck coc aine se ntence pursuant to 18 U. S
. C . § 3582(c) (2), which per mits m odification of a term of imprisonment that was “base d on a sente ncingrang e that has subseque ntly

been lowe red by

the SentencingCommi ssion.” The district cour t d en ied the sentenc e re duction under A mendment 706 to the United States Sentenc ing Guidelines (“U .S.S.G.”), which ef fec tively reduc ed coc aine ba se off ense le vels by

two l ev els , beca

use the district cour

tAmendment 706 lower ed the of fense levels in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) related t o cra ck coc aine 1 drugquantities. SeeU.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c ); U.S.S.G. Supp. t o App. C 226–31 (2008) (A mendment 706). Amendme nt 706 was made retroa ctive on Mar ch 3, 2008. See U.S.S.G. Supp. to A pp. C 253 (2008) ( Amendment 713). 2 conclude d that J enkins was inelig ible for a sentenc e re duction as a c are er o ff ender
. For

the 1 following rea sons, we AF F IRM the district court’s de cision. I. On Marc h 4, 1997, J enkins was indicted on thr ee c ounts: conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine , in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count One) ; distributi on of less t h an five g rams of c ocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1) ( Count Two); and possession with intent to distribute 50 gr ams or more of coc aine ba se, i n violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)( 1) (Count Thre e). Pursuant to a Rule 11 plea ag ree ment, J enkins pleade d g uilty to the three counts. F ED . R. C R IM . P. 11 (e )( 1) (C ) ( no w c od if

ie d a s F ED . R. C R IM . P. 11(c) (1)( C)). J enkins’ base offe ns e l ev el was 34, minus a three-le vel re duction for a cce ptance of responsibility , netting a

total o ff en s e l evel of 31. Due to Jenkins’ status as a ca ree r off ender , pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, his offe nse leve l was enha nced to 37 with a thr ee- level re duction for
acc eptanc e of r esponsibility , thus netting a total of fense level of 34. Jenkins’ eleven c riminal history po int s p la c e d h im i n a

Cr imi na l H ist or

y Cate g or y V, but a g a in, his c are e r o ff e nd e r s tatus ra ise d h im to a C ri min a l H ist or

y Cate g or y VI . A c c or din g ly , Jenkin s’ g uid e lin e s r ang e wa s 2 62 –3 27 mon ths
. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt s e n te n c e d Je n k in s to a te r m o f in c ar c e r a ti o n o f 2 6 2 mo n th s o n Co u n ts One a nd Three concur

rent with 240 months on Count Two. I n this appeal, Jenkins asserts that the district court e rron eo u s l y conclude d that he wa s ineligible for sentenc e modification under § 3582(c) (2) be cause United States v. Book er , 5 43 U. S.3

220 (2005), made the Guidelines a dvisory , thereb y m aking it inconsistent for sentenc e re ductions to be dictated by

the Guidelines. Jenkins acknowledg es that in United States v. Pe rdue , 572 F.3d 288 (6th Cir. 2009), this Court concluded that a defe ndant sentenc ed as a car eer offe nder unde r § 4B1.1 is ineligible f

or a § 3582( c)( 2) sentenc e re duction based on A mendment 706. Id. at 292–93. J enkins, howeve r, re quests us to “hold his appeal in abe y ance pendinga rulingon t h e p etition for
re h ea ri n g an d

re h ea ri n g en banc in Perdue .” (Corr ecte d Br . for Appe llant 12–13.) I n Perdue , the petition for en ba nc re hear ing w as denie d on September 22 , 2009. Perdue , 572 F.3d at 288, reh’g and re h’g en banc denied , (6th Cir. Sept. 22, 2009). Subsequently , the United States Supreme Court denied the petition for wr it of cer tiorari. Perdue v . United States , 1 30 S. Ct
. 1537 (F eb. 22, 2010). A ccor dingly , Perdue re ma ins the c on tr oll inglaw i n th is C ir c uit
. In i n t e r p re t i n g Perdue , this Court st ated that, “ beca use Cong ress e x pressly

limit ed the applicability

of § 3582(c) (2) to ‘ defe ndant[s] whose sente nce w as base d on a subseque ntly -lower ed sent e n c in g r an g e ’ an d A me n dme n t 7 0 6 d id n o t c h an g e th e b a s e o f f e n s e le v e l f

o r c ar e e r offe nders under § 4B 1.1, defe ndants sentenc ed as c are er offende rs ar e not elig ible for se ntence modification under § 3582( c)( 2) and A mendment 706.” United States v. W illiams , N o . 0 8
- 6299, 2 0 1 0 WL 5 5 0 6 3 0 , at * 1 (6 t h C i r. Fe b
. 1 7 , 2 0 1 0 ) ( p er cu ri am ) ( qu o t i n g Perdue , 572 F.3d at 292) (interna l qu o t a t i o nm ar

k s o m i t t e d

b y W ill iam s court) (af

firmingdistrict court’s de nial of a se ntence reduc tion purs ua nt t o A me ndme nt 7 06 be c a us e of the de fe nd ant’ s st a tus a s a care e r o ff e nd e r) ; see also United Sta te s v . G ill is , 592 F.3d 696, 700 ( 6th Cir. 2009) (holding that a defendant determined to be a c are er offe nder is ine ligible to rec eive the be nefits of Ame ndment 706); United States v. Bridgewater , 606 F .3 d 2 58 , 2 60 –6 1 ( 6th

Cir . 2 01 0) (s ame ); United States v. Centeno , No. 09-5347, 2010 WL 2545499, at *4 (6th Cir. J une 21, 2010) ( same). “ Bo ok e r has no impact on that re sult. As we stated in Perdue ,4

‘[e]ven assuming a

rguendo that the Sentenc ing Commission has n o authorit y to limi t the district court’s a bility to reduc e [a defe ndant’s] sentence , Congr ess m ay cer tainly cabin the c ourt’s discretion, and it does so e x pressly in t h e t ex t of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)( 2).’” W illiams , 2 0 1 0 WL 5 5 0 6 3 0 , at * 1 (q u o t i n g Perdue , 572 F.3d at 292). The pa rties offe r no newarguments not previously addre ssed in o ur numerous
a fo re me nti on e d d e c isi on s. Ac c or din g ly , th e de c isi on of the dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IRM ED
.