Page 1 of 3

Case No. 5:93cr5008-RH

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 5:93cr5008-RH

JAMES TRANMER,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER DENYING A SENTENCE

REDUCTION UNDER AMENDMENT 782

The defendant James Tranmer has moved to reduce his sentence under 

United States Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782. But Mr. Tranmer was 

sentenced as a career offender, not based on the drug guideline that was reduced by 

Amendment 782. He is not eligible for a reduction. This order denies relief.

The Sentencing Guidelines establish a guideline range for each defendant. 

The range is based on the defendant’s “total offense level” and “criminal history 

category.” The total offense level is based on the defendant’s “base offense level” 

with increases or decreases based on specific offense characteristics. For drug 

offenses, the base offense level ordinarily turns on the type and quantity of drugs 

properly attributed to the defendant. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 

Case 5:93-cr-05008-RH Document 235 Filed 06/24/16 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Case No. 5:93cr5008-RH

§ 2D1.1 (2014). For a defendant who is a “career offender,” however, the base 

offense level is the greater of the drug offense level or the career-offender level. 

See id. § 4B1.1(b).

Amendment 782 reduced the base offense level for most drug offenses. The 

amendment did not, however, affect the separate career-offender base offense 

level. The offense level of a career offender was and still is determined under a 

wholly separate guideline. A district court may reduce the sentence of a defendant 

“who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range 

that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 

3582(c)(2) (emphasis added). But a district court must not reduce the sentence of a 

defendant whose range has not been lowered. Because the career-offender 

guideline range has not been changed, Mr. Tranmer is not eligible for a reduction. 

The Eleventh Circuit squarely so held in addressing indistinguishable prior 

guideline amendments. See United States v. Berry, 701 F.3d 374, 376 (11th Cir. 

2012) (Amendment 750); United States v. Moore, 541 F. 3d 1323, 1327 (11th Cir. 

2008) (Amendment 706). See also United States v. Allen, No. 15-12692, 2015 WL 

7720320, at *1 (11th Cir. Nov. 30, 2015) (unpublished) (“[The defendant] was not 

eligible for a reduction in sentence because Amendment 782 did not have the effect 

of reducing his sentence range under the Guidelines due to his status as a career 

offender and the operation of § 4B1.1.”). 

Case 5:93-cr-05008-RH Document 235 Filed 06/24/16 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Case No. 5:93cr5008-RH

For these reasons, 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The motion to reduce the sentence, ECF No. 229, is DENIED.

2. The clerk must provide a copy of this order to Mr. Tranmer himself by 

mail and to the attorneys of record and the Federal Public Defender through the 

electronic filing system.

SO ORDERED on June 24, 2016.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 5:93-cr-05008-RH Document 235 Filed 06/24/16 Page 3 of 3