[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 10 74 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 4 :0 2- cr-0 02 45 -WT M-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us OPOLLO REY JOHNSON, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 18 , 20 12 ) Befo re HULL, JORDAN an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:

Case: 12-10743 Date Filed: 12/18/2012 Page: 1 of 3Opo ll o R ey Jo hn so n app eal s the di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n fo r a reduc ti on inhi s 2 40 -m on th sen te nc e, pu rs ua ntto 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ). He co nt en ds th at Free man v. Uni te d Sta tes , 13 1 S . Ct. 2 68 5 (2 01 1) , gav e th e d is tri ct co urt au th or ity

to res en te nc e h im , andth athi s s en te nc e was ba se d o n the crac k co cai ne gu id el in es rathe r th anhi s d es ig na ti onas acare er o ffen de r. A def en da ntm ay

fil e a m ot io n t o m od ify a term of i m pr is on m en t i f th e de fen da ntwas s en te nc edto a te rm of i m pr is on m en t b as edona se nt en ci ng ran ge th atha s s ub se qu en tl y

be enlo weredby the Sen te nc in g C omm is si on . 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ). W e rev ie w a de ci si on to reduc e a s en te nc e p ur su an t t o 1 8 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n, an d l eg al in te rp ret at io ns de no vo . Uni te d Stat es v. W

il li ams , 54 9 F .3d13 37 , 13 38 -3 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . Am en dm en t 7 50 rev is edth e cra ckco cai ne qu an ti ty tab le s i n U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 to co nf

orm to th e Fai r Sen te nc in g Actof 2 01 0, wh ic h a m en de d c ert ai n st atut ory m in im um sen te nc es . Se e U.S.S.G. App . C, am en d. 7 50 (effe ct iv e Nov . 1, 20 11 ). A subs eque ntam en dm en t m ad e Am en dm en t 7 50 retro act iv e, pe rm itti ng se nt en ce re du ct io ns un de r 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ). Se e U.S.S.G. App . C, am en d. 75 9. Ho wev er, a re du ct io n i s i napp ro pr ia te if an o ffen de r was ori gi na ll y sen te nc ed as a care er o ffen de r. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Mo or e , 54 1 F .3d13 23 , 13 30 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). W e h av e h el d tha t Free man di d n otov erru le Moo re be cau se Free man di d 2 Case: 12-10743 Date Filed: 12/18/2012 Page: 2 of 3no t ad dr es s d efen da nt s wh o wer e se nt en cedas c aree r of fen de rs . Uni te d Sta tes v. La ws on , 68 6 F .3d13 17 , 13 20 -1 32 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 2) . The PSI as si gn edJo hn so n agu id el in es ran ge ba se d o n acare er o ffen de r en ha nc em en t. The di stric t co urt ex pl ic it ly ado pt edth e PSI i n fu ll du rin g Jo hn so n’s s en te nc in g h eari ng . The d is tri ctco urt ad op te d agu id el in es ran ge ba se d on th e car eer o ffen de r en ha nc em en t, an d d ep art eddo wnwar d fr om th e car eer of fen de r ran ge ba se d o n J oh ns on ’s cri m in al hi st ory . Accor di ng ly, th e se nt en ce was no t b as edonth e g ui de li ne s ra ng e fo r cra ckco cai ne , andJo hn so n was in el ig ib le fora se nt en ce re du ct io n u nd er Am en dm en t 7 50 . Se e Mo or e , 54 1 F .3dat 13 30 . Thu s, we af

firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f Jo hn so n’s 1 8 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n. AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 12-10743 Date Filed: 12/18/2012 Page: 3 of 3