**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 7311** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. KERRY DONNELL LEE, JR., a/k/a Skinny , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Abingdon

. James P. Jones , District Judge. ( 1:08

- cr - 00024

- JPJ

- 7 )

Submitted : February 27, 2017 Decided: March 7, 2017

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Kerry Donnell Lee, Jr. , Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Zachary T. Lee , Assistant United States Attorneys, Mary Kathleen Carnell , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTOR NEY , Abingdon , Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kerry Donnell Lee, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a reduction of his sent ence. Lee sought relief under Amendment 750 and Amendment 782 (collectively “the Amendments”) of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”), both of which lowered the base offense levels for drug offenses involving cocaine base.
See USSG § 2D1.1(c) ( 201 5); USSG a pp. C , a mends. 750, 782. The district court concluded that Lee was not entitled to the benefit of the Amendments because he was sentenced as a career offender. Our review of the record reveals that, although Lee qualified as a career offende r, see USSG § 4B1.1 (2007), he was

no t sentenced as a career offender . Nevertheless, for the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Amendments would not have the eff ect of lowering Lee’s G uideline s sentencing range. We accordingly affirm. See United States v. Smith , 395 F.3d 516, 519 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding that we “may affirm on any grounds apparent from the record”). Under § 3582(c)(2), the district court may reduce the sentence of a defendant who “has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” United States v. Williams , 808 F.3d 253, 257 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). To determine whether a particular amendment has3 the effect of loweri ng a defendant’s applicable G uideline s sentencing range, “the sentencing court must substitute only the amendments rendered retroactive by the Commission and leave all other guideline application decision s unaffected.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitte d). “Guidelines Amendments 750 and 782 lowered the base offense levels assigned to different amounts of cocaine base,” and both amendments are retroactive. United States v. Peters , 843 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 2016). “Amendment 750 increased the minimum quantity of cocaine base necessary to trigger the maximum base offense level [of 38] from 4.5 to 8.4 kilograms.” Id. “Amendment 782 again raised the requisite amount of cocaine base from 8.4 to 25.2 kilograms.” Id. Thus, “[f]or defendants responsible f or at least 25.2 kilograms of cocaine base, Amendment 782 has no effect; the maximum base offense level (38 levels) still applies.” Id. Lee was held responsible for 51.35 kilograms of cocaine base; thus, neither Ame ndment 750 nor Amendment 782 ha s any

e ffect on his base offense level. Simply stated, Lee’s sentence was not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Had Lee been sentenced after the Amendments went into effec t, his base offense level would remain 38, the career offender enhancement would not apply, and his G uideline s sentencing range would remain the same. Therefore, neither4 Amendment 750 nor Amendment 782 has the effect of lowering Lee’ s G uideline s sentencin g range, and Lee i s not entitled to a sentence reduction. Because Lee i s ineligible for a sentence reduction under
§ 3582(c)(2), we affirm the district court’s denial of relief on this alternate ground. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately prese nted in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED