[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-13549

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:02-cr-00243-EAK-MAP-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MYRON BOBO COOK, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(February 24, 2014)

Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Myron Cook appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to 

reduce his 240-month sentence. Because the district court correctly concluded 

Cook was ineligible for a reduction, we affirm. 

Case: 13-13549 Date Filed: 02/24/2014 Page: 1 of 4 
2

A jury found Cook guilty of three crack cocaine offenses in 2003. At 

sentencing, the district court calculated his sentencing guidelines range as 235 to 

293 months in prison. The court also concluded, however, that Cook’s prior 

convictions, when coupled with the 254.16 grams of cocaine base attributable to 

him, triggered a statutory mandatory minimum sentence of 240 months’ 

imprisonment, which was the sentence the court ultimately rendered. In 2012, 

Cook moved the district court to reduce his sentence under § 3582(c)(2), arguing 

that Amendment 750 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines would reduce the 

range he was subject to at sentencing. The court denied Cook’s motion, and this is 

his appeal of that ruling.

We review de novo a district court’s conclusion about the scope of its 

authority under § 3582(c)(2) to modify a defendant’s sentence. United States v. 

Liberse, 688 F.3d 1198, 1200 n.1 (11th Cir. 2012). In United States v. Hippolyte, 

we concluded a crack cocaine offender was not entitled to a sentence reduction 

when Amendment 750 would have lowered his sentencing guidelines range but he 

was actually sentenced to the statutory mandatory minimum. 712 F.3d 535, 542 

(11th Cir.), cert. denied 134 S. Ct. 181 (2013). Cook acknowledges the similarity 

of that case to his, but argues it is not controlling because Hippolyte’s mandatory 

minimum exceeded his entire guidelines range while Cook’s minimum became the 

bottom of his guidelines range. That difference, Cook points out, means that 

Case: 13-13549 Date Filed: 02/24/2014 Page: 2 of 4 
3

different sections of the guidelines dictated the range of sentences available to the 

court when he was sentenced. Under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(b), Hippolyte’s range

became the mandatory minimum because that number exceeded his entire range as 

calculated under the guidelines. By contrast, § 5G1.1(c) dictated only that Cook’s 

sentence could not be lower than the mandatory minimum, which became the 

bottom of his guidelines range. 

That distinction, however, does not matter. Relief under § 3582(c)(2) is 

available only when the defendant’s “sentencing range has subsequently been 

lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” Id. Absent exceptions not applicable 

here, a district court “may not reduce a defendant’s sentence to a term below the 

amended guidelines range.” Liberse, 688 F.3d at 1201. Cook’s guidelines range

even with Amendment 750 could not go below the sentence he actually received 

because that sentence was set by statute, not the sentencing commission. Thus, 

although Cook is correct that Amendment 750 would affect the top of his range, it 

could have no effect on his sentence. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(c); see also United 

States v. Glover, 686 F.3d 1203, 1206 (11th Cir. 2012) (stating that defendant “is 

not to receive,” on a § 3582(c)(2) motion, “a lower sentence than he would have 

received if the amendment had been in effect at the time of his sentencing”).

“Section 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a sentence reduction if a guidelines 

amendment does not have the effect of reducing the defendant’s sentence.” 

Case: 13-13549 Date Filed: 02/24/2014 Page: 3 of 4 
4

Hippolyte, 712 F.3d at 542. Cook has abandoned his argument that alterations 

Congress made to the drug quantity triggers for mandatory minimum sentences in 

the Fair Sentencing Act should retroactively apply to him. And he offers no other 

basis upon which we or the district court could circumvent the statutory mandatory 

minimum sentence that set the bottom of his guidelines range and that he actually 

received. Therefore, we conclude the district court correctly decided Cook was 

ineligible for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-13549 Date Filed: 02/24/2014 Page: 4 of 4