[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-10276

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:93-cr-00080-PAS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NICK FERRER, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(September 30, 2016)

Before HULL, WILLIAM PRYOR, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Nick Ferrer, 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: 16-10276 Date Filed: 09/30/2016 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. On appeal, Ferrer argues that he is 

eligible for a reduction under Amendment 782, even though he was sentenced as a 

career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, because his guideline range was actually 

supplied by the drug guidelines in § 2D1.1. As such, he asserts that Amendment 

782 lowers his applicable guideline range. He further contends that our precedent 

to the contrary has been abrogated by the Supreme Court’s decision in Freeman v. 

United States, 564 U.S. 522, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (2011).

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 guideline range under the amended Guidelines. United States v. 

Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780 (11th Cir. 2000). When recalculating the guideline 

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 reduction under § 3582(c)(2) when an amendment listed in 

Case: 16-10276 Date Filed: 09/30/2016 Page: 2 of 4 
3

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d) lowers his guideline range as calculated by the sentencing 

court prior to any departure or variance. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1); id., cmt. n.1(A).

Amendment 782 provides a 2-level reduction in the base offense levels for 

most drug quantities listed in the Drug Quantity Table in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). 

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 

guideline 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 guideline 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 § 2D1.1 

does not affect a career offender’s guideline 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).

Upon a review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we 

affirm.

The district court did not err by denying Ferrer’s motion for a sentence 

reduction because Amendment 782 did not lower his guideline range, as Ferrer’s 

Case: 16-10276 Date Filed: 09/30/2016 Page: 3 of 4 
4

total offense level and criminal history category were determined by the careeroffender guideline in § 4B1.1, not the drug guideline in § 2D1.1. See Lawson, 686 

F.3d at 1321. Further, we have expressly rejected the argument that Freeman 

overruled Moore and have reaffirmed that Moore continues to be binding 

precedent. See id. at 1320-21. Therefore, the district court correctly concluded 

that Ferrer was ineligible for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-10276 Date Filed: 09/30/2016 Page: 4 of 4