The Honor able Rober t H. Cleland, United States District J udg e for the Easter n District of * Michig an, 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 F ile Nam e: 10a0444n.06 No. 09-5435 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. JEF F REYL . B ASS , De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI ST R I CT COURT FOR THE WES TERN DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY

Be fore : SI L ER and SUTTON, Circuit Judges; CL EL AND, District Judge
. *
CL EL AND, District J udg e. J eff rey Ba ss appea ls the di strict court’s denial of a motion for a sente nce r eduction pursua nt to 18 U.S.C . § 3582(c) (2). Ba ss seeks a r eduction in sentenc e under Am e ndme nts 70 6 a

nd 71 3 to the Un ite d St a

t e s S e nt e n c i n g

Gu i d e l i n e s ( “ USS G” ), wh ic h r e tr oa c tiv e ly reduc e the ba se off

ense le vels applica

ble to coca ine base (“c rac k”) of fense s. The dis trict court denied a reduc tion because Ba ss was sentenc ed as a car eer offe nder a

nd is thus ineligible to rec eive
a se nte nc e re du c tio n. We a ff ir m.
I.No. 09-5435

US A v . B as s

- 2 - J eff rey Ba ss pleaded guilty

pursuant to a Rul e 11 Plea Agre ement to two counts of possession with intent to dis tribute five g rams or more of cr ack c ocaine , one count of aiding and abe tting in the possession with intent to distribute five gra ms or more of c rac k coca ine, and one count of c onspiracy to p os se ss w ithint e nt t o d istri bute fi ve g ra ms o r m or e of

c ra c k c oc a ine , a ll i n v iol a tio n o f 2 1 U .S. C. §§ 841(a) (1) a

nd 846. R. 1; R. 55; R. 112.
For sentenc ing pur

poses, B ass’s base offe nse leve l was 28 but he re ceive d a 3 leve l reduc tion fo r a c c e pta

nc e of re sp on sib ili ty , res ul ting in a tot a l of fe ns e le ve l of

25 . R. 59 a t ¶

¶ 3 2- 35 . A s a result of his ca

ree r off ender status, however , his offense level wa s enhanc ed to 34. Id. at ¶ 36. Af ter applying his 3 level reduc tion f or ac cepta

nce of responsibility , the total offe nse leve l was 31. Id. at ¶ 37-39. He was plac ed in cr iminal hist ory cate g ory VI be cause of his car eer offe nder status, a

nd his resulting guideline ra

ng e wa s 188-235 months imprisonm ent. Id. at ¶ 36. Neither party objected to B a ss’ s off

e ns e le ve l or c ri min a l hi sto ry c a te g or y , a nd the dis tr ic t c ourt

se nte nc e d h im a c c or din g ly to 1 88 months imp ri so nme nt a nd 5 y e ars su

pe rv ise d r e le a se on July 23 , 20 02
. R. 11 4 at 2: 8- 20 ; R. 58.
Ba ss filed pro se motions for a re duction in sentence on Fe bruar y 2 5 , 2 0 08, and Jul y

17, 2008. R. 84; R. 87. The district c ourt denied these motions wit hout prejudice , but on Dece mber 8, 2008, it appointed counsel for Ba ss a nd order ed the Probation Offic e to pr epar e a Memora ndum of Reca lculation (“MOR” ). R. 86; R. 89; R . 104. The M OR n oted that, while B ass’s ame nded g uidelines under U SSG Amendment 706 lowere d Ba ss’s base offense level by 2 points, his caree r offe nder status none theless kept his total offe nse leve l at 31 (af ter a 3 level reduction for a cce ptanceNo. 09-5435

US A v . B as s

- 3 - of re sponsibili ty). R. 105 at 2-3. His criminal hi story cate g ory also rema ined at VI , which re sulted in an identical guideline ra ng e of 188- 235 months im prisonment. Id. Def ense c ou n s el filed an objection to the MOR. R. 107.
On Marc h 30, 2009, the district court issued a n o rd er denying a

reduc tion in sentence,
re as o n i n g:
In this case, the c rac k coca ine amendme nt reduc es the de fenda nt’s base of

fense level fo r h is d ru g c onvic tio ns , bu t it d oe s n ot h ave the e ff e c t of low e ri nghis ult imate g uid e lin e ra

ng e fo r im pr iso me nt b e c a us e his se nte nc ingra

ng e is c on tr oll e d b y

his status as a c are er of

fende r . . . . There fore , a reduc tion in sentenc e is not authorized under 18 U .S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
. R. 109 at 2. Ba ss timely

appea led. R. 110.
II.
Under 18 U
. S. C. § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) , w h e na d e f e n d an t “ h a s b e e ns e n te n c e d to a te r m of imprisonment based on a se ntencingrang e that has subse quently been lowe red by

the Sentencing Commi ssion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o),” the c ourt may , on motio n , re d u ce the term of imprisonment “ afte r considering the fac tors set forth in se ction 3553(a) to the extent tha t t h ey are applicable , if such a r eduction is cons i s t en t with applicable policy statements issued by

the Sentencing Commi ssion.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c )(2) . The district cour t’s decision to deny

a motion under § 3582 is g ener ally revie wed f

or an a buse of discr etion. U

n ite d S ta te s v . Bridgewater , 606 F. 3 d 2 5 8 , 2 6 0 (6 thC i r. 2 0 1 0 ) ( ci t i n g U n ite d S ta te s v . Ca r ter , 5 0 0 F. 3 d 486, 490 (6th Cir. 2007)).No. 09-5435

US A v . B as s

- 4 - Howeve r, whe re, a s here , the par ties’ ar g uments rely

on the legal i n t erp re t ation of the sente ncing g uidelines, “the district c ourt’s interpr etation of the se ntencing g uidelines prese nts a question of law, subject to de novo re view.” United States v. Pe vele r , 359 F.3d 369, 373 (6th Cir. 2004) (c i t ing Un ite d S tates v . S mi th , 196 F.3d 676 ( 6th Cir. 1999)).
The district cour

t denied a reduc tion of sentence in this case be cause it found that Ba ss, as
a ca ree r off ender , was inelig ible for a reduc tion under § 3582. We ag ree . Another pa

nel in this circuit has alre ady addre ssed this issue. See United States v. Perdue , 572 F.3d 288 ( 6th Cir. 2009), reh’g and reh’g e n banc denie d (Sept. 22, 2009), cert. de nied 13 0 S. Ct. 1537 (Feb. 22, 2010) . The Perdue court he ld that “a district cour t may not gr ant a motion for a reduc tion in sentence pr emised upon Am en d ment 706 if the def endant se ekingthe re duction was orig inally sentenc ed as a

car eer offe nder.” Id. at 2 9 2 (c i t i n g United States v. Mate o , 560 F.3d 152, 15 5 ( 3d Cir . 2 00 9) ; United States v. Forman , 5 53 F.3 d 585 , 5 89 (7 th C ir . 2 00 9) ; United States v. Carab allo , 552 F .3 d 6, 9 (1 st Cir . 2 00 8) ; United States v. Sharke y , 543 F.3d 1236, 1239 (10th Cir. 20 08 )) ; se e als o Un ite d States v . Le as ur e , 331 F. App’x 370, 378 (6th Cir. 2009) (holding that the defe ndant’s sente nce could only be re duced “ if the def endant wa s sentence d under the provision that
wa s ame nd e d” and

the de fe nd ant w a s in e lig ibl e fo r a re du c tio n und e r A me ndme nt 7 06 be c a us e his “off ense le vel was calc ulated pursuant to the uncha ng ed ca ree r off ender provision”); United States v. Alex ander , 543 F.3d 819, 825 ( 6th Cir. 2008) (hol d i n g t hat a c are er of fende r convic ted of a
co ca i n e b as e o ff

en s e c o u l d

n o ts ee k re l i ef un d er

Am en dm en t7 0 6 b ec au s e “ th e s en t en ci n g ra n ge applied to his case [was] derive d exclusively from the Guide lines’ unamende d car eer offe nderNo. 09-5435

US A v . B as s

I t appea rs that Bass rec og nizes the effe ct of Perdueon his appea l. He filed his appe al brief 1 wh i l e th e pe t i t i o n fo r re h e a r i n g a n dr eh ea ri n g en banc in Perduewa s st ill pe nd ing , a nd his Intr od uc tio n state s that the br ie f is b e ingsu bmi tte d “ [i]n th e e ve nt t

hat th e pe tit ion

fo r r e he ari ngis g rante d in Perdue. ” (A

ppellant’s B r. 2.) Rehe aringwas de nied on September 22, 2009. - 5 - provision set forth in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a ), not the ame nded drug- q uantity table listed at U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1”)
. Ba ss argues that bec ause the sentenc ing guidelines are advisory under Un i t ed Stat es v. Booke r , 5 43 U. S. 2 20 (2 00 5) , “ Con g re ss w ou ld n ot i nte nd to l imi t se nte nc e re du c tio ns to d e fe nd ants whose sente nces w ere origi n al l y ‘driven by ’ a now -ame nded Guideline.” (Appe llant’s Br . 12.) Simi larl y , B a ss argue s th a t “ [p]os t- Booke r , Congr ess would intend for c ourts to revisit the d i s c r e t i o n ar

y c o mp o n e n t s o f

t h e i r s e n t e n c e s w h e nth o s e c o mp o n e n t s ar e p o t e n t i a l l y a f f e c t e d b y a retroa ctive Guideline a

mendment.” (

Id. 13 .) B a ss as se rt s th a t th e langua g e of § 3 58 2( c )( 2) , a s w e ll as various policy considerations and the rule of le nity , support his argument that his care er of fende r status does not rende r him ineligible f or a se ntence reduc tion.
A l l o f B a s s ’ s ar g u m e n t s ar e f o r e c l o s e d b y Perdue. See Salmi v . Sec’ y of Health &Human 1 Servs ., 774 F.2d 685, 689 (6th Cir. 1985) (holding t hat prior decision by another Six th Circuit panel “re mains controlling a

uthority unless an inconsist ent decision of the United States Supreme Court
re qu i re s m o d i fi ca t i o n o f th e d ec i s i o n o r th i s C o urt s i t t i n g en banc o v e r r u l e s th e p r i o r

d e c i s i o n ” )
. In Perdue , we r ejec ted similar arguments that the discretionar y nature of the guidelines allows the cour t t o re d u ce a c a r e e r o ff

en d er ’s s en t en ce , s t at i n g: “E v en as s u m i n g arguendo that the Sentencing Com m i s s i o n h as no authority to limi t the district court’s a bility to reduc e Perdue ’s sentenc e,No. 09-5435

US A v . B as s

- 6 - 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).” Perdue , 572 F.3d at 292. Instead, we held as a matter of statutory interpre tation that a § 3582(c )(2) reduc tion is available only to defe ndants whose or igina l sentence s were “base d on” a subseque ntly -lowed se ntencingrang e, a n d t h at defe ndants who we re c lassified and se ntence d “base d on” their c are er of fende r status are statutorily ineligible f

or a r eduction. Id. at 292-93.
Th e re is no dis pute that B a ss w a s c or re c tly c la ssi fi e d a

nd se nte nc e d a s a

c are e r o ff e nd e r. Hi s
se nte nc e wa s not “b a se d on” the c ra c k co c a ine g uid e lin e s, but ra the r on his c are e r of fe nd e r s tatus
. The district cour

t’s deter mination that he was inelig ible for a sentenc e re duction is AFF I RMED.