[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 15-15411 

Non-Argument Calendar

_______________________

D.C. Docket No. 7:10-cr-00024-HL-TQL-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

COREY FAISON,

 Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Middle District of Georgia

_____________________

(December 6, 2016)

Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:

Corey Faison, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's denial of his 

motion to reduce his sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on

Case: 15-15411 Date Filed: 12/06/2016 Page: 1 of 5 
Amendments 706 and 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. He contends that his 

110-month sentence is above the guidelines range, after applying Amendments 706 

and 782, and thus should be reduced. He also challenges, for the first time, his 

career-offender designation. He argues that his prior convictions no longer qualify 

as predicate convictions under U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.1, in light of the Supreme Court's

decision in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S.____ , 135 S. Ct. 2551, 192 L. Ed. 2d

569 (2015)—in which the Supreme Court held that the residual clause of the 

ACCA is unconstitutionally vague.

We review the district court's conclusions about the scope of its legal 

authority under § 3582(c)(2) de novo. United States v. Colon, 707 F.3d 1255,1258 

(11th Cir. 2013).

A district court may modify a defendant's term of imprisonment if the 

defendant was sentenced based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been 

lowered by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Any reduction, 

however, must be consistent with the Sentencing Commission's policy statements. 

Id. When the district court considers a § 3582(c)(2) motion, it must first recalculate 

the guidelines range under the amended guidelines. United States v. Bravo, 203 

F.3d 778, 780 (11th Cir. 2000). When recalculating the guidelines range, it can only 

substitute the amended guideline and must keep intact all other guidelines decisions 

made during the original sentencing. Id. A defendant is eligible for a sentence

2

Case: 15-15411 Date Filed: 12/06/2016 Page: 2 of 5 
reduction under § 3582(c)(2) when an amendment listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d) 

lowers his guidelines range that was calculated by the sentencing court prior to any 

departure or variance. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n. 1(A)).

Amendment 706 reduced the U.S.S.G. § 2D 1.1(c) offense levels in crack 

cocaine cases and became effective in November 2007. U.S.S.G. App. C, amend. 

706. Similarly, Amendment 782 provided a two-level reduction in the base offense 

levels for most drug quantities listed in the Drug Quantity Table in 

§ 2Dl.l(c) and became effective in November 2014. U.S.S.G. App. C, amend. 

782. A district court is not authorized to reduce a defendant's sentence under 

§ 3582(c)(2) where a retroactively applicable guidelines amendment reduces his 

base offense level but does not alter the guidelines range upon which his sentence 

was based. United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323,1330 (11th Cir. 2008). 

Specifically, when a drug offender is sentenced under the career-offender guideline 

in § 4B1.1, the guidelines range upon which his sentence is based is calculated from 

§ 4B1.1, not § 2D1.1. United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317,1321 (11th Cir. 

2012). Because an amendment to § 2D 1.1 does not affect a career offender's 

guidelines range, he is ineligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) based 

on an amendment to that guideline. Id. (affirming the denial of a sentence reduction 

under Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines).

3

Case: 15-15411 Date Filed: 12/06/2016 Page: 3 of 5 
Section 3582(c)(2) does not authorize resentencing. Dillon v. United States, 

560 U.S. 817, 831,130 S. Ct. 2683, 2694,177 L. Ed. 2d 271 (2010). Indeed, the 

Supreme Court has noted that it only permits sentence reduction within narrow 

bounds, and that the relevant policy statement instructs that a court proceeding 

under that subsection "shall leave all other guideline application decisions 

unaffected." Id.

The district court did not err by denying Faison's motion for a sentence 

reduction because Amendments 706 and 782 did not lower his guidelines range. 

Amendments 706 and 782 did not affect Faison's guidelines range because his total 

offense level and guidelines range were determined by the career-offender 

guideline in § 4B1.1, not § 2D1.1. See also Lawson, 686 F.3d at 1321. Moreover, 

the fact that the court departed below the guidelines range has no bearing on 

whether Amendments 706 and 782 apply to Faison. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, 

comment, (n. 1(A)) (stating that the retroactively applicable amendment must 

reduce the defendant's guidelines range that was calculated before the application of 

a departure). Although Faison argues that his career offender designation is no 

longer valid in light of Johnson, that issue lies outside the scope of the present 

proceeding. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 831,130 S. Ct. at 2694. Therefore, the court 

correctly concluded that Faison was ineligible for a sentence reduction based on 

Amendments 706 and 782.

4

Case: 15-15411 Date Filed: 12/06/2016 Page: 4 of 5 
AFFIRMED.

5

Case: 15-15411 Date Filed: 12/06/2016 Page: 5 of 5