NO T F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0013n.06 No. 08-4126 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA,

P laintif f-App ellee, ON AP P EA L F RO M THE v. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE NORT HERN M IK E STU BBS, DI STRIC T OF OHI O Defendan t-Appellant. ___________________________________/ BEF OR E: SUH RH EIN RI CH , M c KEA G UE and K ETHL ED G E; Ci r c uitJudg e s. P ER CURIAM . Def

endant Micha el Stubbs appeals fr om th e o rd er an d judgme nt of the district court deny

ing his motion to modify

his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). Stubbs’s mot ion is b a se d o n A me ndme nt 7 06 to t he Un ite d St a te s Se nte nc ingGuid eli nes, w hic h, in
c on jun cti on wi th Am end men t 7 13 , ret roac ti vel y redu ces b y

tw o p oi nt s b ase o ffen se l evel s ap pl icabl e to cra ck coc aine offense s. The dist rict cour t denied Stubbs’s motion on t he g rounds that Stubbs was sentenc ed as a

car eer offe nder a

nd was thus inelig ible for r elief. We AF F IRM
. On Fe bruar

y 6, 2002, Stubbs was indicted in a 39-count indictment c harg ing Stubbs and 39
c od e fend ant s wi th c on sp ir ingto p os se ss w ithint e nt t o d ist ri bute c oc a ine and

c oc a ine ba se , in vio latio n of 21 U. S.C. §§ 84 6 an d 841 (a )( 1) and (b )( 1) (A ) (Co un t 1) ; and po sse ssi on

wi th i nte nt t o distribute coca ine base , in violation of 21 U.S .C. §§ 841(a)( 1) and ( b)(1) (C) (Counts 20, 22, 25, and 33). On Apr il 11, 2002, Stubbs pleade d g uilty to Count 1, pursuant to a wr itten plea agree ment, and the re maining c ounts were dismiss ed.United States v. Book er , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). 1 I n Perdue we r ejec ted the ver y argument Stubbs m akes in this case : 2 E v en as s u m i n g arguendo tha t the Se nte nc ingCom mis sio n h a s n o a uth or ity to l imi t the di strict court’s ability to reduc e Perdue ’s sentenc e [post-Booker ], Con gr ess may c e rt a inl y c a bin the c ourt ’s dis c re tio n, and it d oe s so e xpre ssl y

in t he te xt of 18 U. S.C. § 3582(c) (2). United States v. Pe rdue , 572 F.3d 288, 292 ( 6th Cir. 2009). 2 Th e amou nt o f c oc a ine ba se in C ount 1 wa s st ipu late d b y ple a a g re e me nt a s 5 to 2 0 g ra

ms. At the time of sentenc ing, U .S.S.G. § 2D1.1 set the base of fense level at 26 with a c riminal history cate g ory of VI (210 to 262 months). Howeve r, consistent with the plea ag ree ment and the prese ntence repor

t’s finding s, the district court dete rmined that Stubbs was a c are er of fende r under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, re sulting in an a djusted offe nse l evel of 37 and criminal history cate g ory VI (360 months to l ife). U

pon the Gover

nment’s motion under U.S. S .G. §§ 3 E1.1. and 5K 1.1, the cour t
c a lc ulate d St

ub bs ’s tot a l off

e ns e le ve l at 28, wi th a r e su lti ngGu ide lin e s r ang e of 14 0- 17 5 mo nth s. On August 19, 2002, the district court sentenc ed Stubbs to 140 mont hs’ imprisonment, followed by four y ear s of supervise d rele ase. On J uly 25, 2008, Stubbs filed a motion for a sente nce r eduction under 18 U .S.C. § 3582(c)(2) . The district cour t denied Stubbs’s motion. S tu bb s ar gues o n ap peal th at po st- B o oker all g uidelines provisions including c are er of fende r 1 status are d i s cre tionary . This argument is forec losed by the re cent de cision of United States v. Perdue , 572 F.3d 288 ( 6th Cir. 2009), reh’g and re h’g en banc denied, September 22, 2009, which holds that defenda

nts who are sentenc ed as c are er offe nders a re ine ligible f

or sentenc e modifications based on A mendment 706. See P erdue , 572 F.3d at 290. 23

Stubbs arg ues in the alter

native that he w as not sentenc ed w it h in th e c a ree r off ender g uideline b e c a u s e t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rtg r an t e d h i m a n i n e - l e v e l d o w n w ar d

d e p artu r e b e l o w t h e r an g e s e tb y § 4B1.1, pla cing him outsi de the intende d limit s of § 1B 1.10 and thus rende ri n g him eligible f or modification of sente nce unde r 18 U.S.C. § 3582. We rece ntly reje cted a v i rt ually

identical
ar gu m en ti nan u np u

b l i s h edd ec i s i o nap p l yi n g Perdue : “The 5K1.1 depar ture, howe ver, did not chang e the f

act that [Stubbs] was sente nced ba sed on his car eer offe nder status-- not the amended § 2D1.1 provision.” Un ite d S tates v . Lo c k

e tt , No
. 0 8 -4 2 5 9 , 2 0 0 9 W L 2 4 4 5 7 3 3 , at * 1 (6 t h C i r. Au g. 10, 2009). Se e als o Uni te d S tates v . M oo re , 541 F.3d 1323, 1329- 30 (11th Cir. 2008) (re jecting the argument that downward depa rture me ant that the sente nce w as not based on the car eer offe nder g u i d e l i n e s ; r e l i e d

o nb y Loc k

e tt court), cert. de nied , 1 2 9 S
. C t . 1 6 0 1 ( 2 0 0 9 ) ( N o . 0 8
- 8 5 5 4 )
. It should also be noted that, althoug h the Perduecourt did not separat el y ad d ress the argument, the district court in that ca se also gra nted the def

endant both a thr ee- level re duction based on a cce ptance of re sponsibili ty

under U .S.S.G. § 3 E1.1, and a five-le vel downwa

rd depa rture f or substantial assistance pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. See P erdue , 572 F.3d at 290. Ac c or din g ly , th e or de r o f t he dis tr ic t c ou

rt is AF F IRMED.