[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-13652

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:96-cr-00085-RV-SMN-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FRITZ MAJOR, 

a.k.a. Fritz Casmir,

a.k.a. James,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(March 20, 2013)

Before CARNES, HULL, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 12-13652 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Fritz Major was convicted by a jury of one count of conspiring to possess 

with intent to distribute cocaine and crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 

841(b)(1)(A)(ii), (b)(1)(A)(iii), and 846, and one count of possessing with intent to 

distribute crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii). The 

presentence investigation report initially concluded that Major was responsible for 

2.7 kilograms of crack cocaine, resulting in a base offense level of 38. See United 

States Sentencing Guidelines § 2D.1.1(c) (Nov. 1997). A handwritten amendment 

to the PSI reduced that amount from 2.7 kilograms to between 1 and 1.5 kilograms, 

resulting in a base offense level of 36. See id. The PSI also concluded that Major 

was a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. At sentencing, the district court 

concluded that Major was responsible for 1 to 1.5 kilograms of crack cocaine, 

which would have made his base offense level 36. See id. § 2D1.1(c). But 

because Major was a career offender, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 applied, resulting in a base 

offense level of 37 and a criminal history category of VI. See id. § 4B1.1. The 

result was a guidelines range of 360 months to life imprisonment. The court 

sentenced Major to 364 months imprisonment. 

Major filed a pro se motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 

3582(c)(2), contending that Amendment 750 to the guidelines reduced his 

guidelines range. The district court denied that motion, concluding that 

Case: 12-13652 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 2 of 4 
3

Amendment 750 did not have the effect of lowering Major’s guidelines range

because he was sentenced as a career offender. This is Major’s appeal.

We review de novo a district court’s conclusions about the scope of its legal 

authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 

1326 (11th Cir. 2008). “Where a retroactively applicable guideline amendment 

reduces a defendant’s base offense level, but does not alter the [career offender]

sentencing range upon which his or her sentence was based, § 3582(c)(2) does not 

authorize a reduction in sentence.” Id. at 1330. While Amendment 750 reduced

the base offense levels for crack cocaine offenses, it did not alter the sentencing 

range upon which Major’s sentence was based because he was sentenced under the 

career offender guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. For that reason, Moore controls. 

See also United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir. 2012) (“Moore

remains binding precedent because it has not been overruled.”).

Major also argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon v. United 

States, 560 U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 2683 (2010), was wrongly decided because it allows 

the Sentencing Commission to strip the district court of its discretion to lower his 

sentence based on the particular facts of his case. Right or wrong, we are bound to 

follow the Supreme Court’s interpretation of federal law in Dillon, 130 S.Ct. at 

2691, which recognized the Sentencing Commission’s authority to decide in what 

circumstances and by what amount a prisoner’s sentence may be reduced in a § 

Case: 12-13652 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 3 of 4 
4

3582(c)(2) proceeding. See McGinley v. Houston, 361 F.3d 1328, 1331 (11th Cir. 

2004).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 12-13652 Date Filed: 03/20/2013 Page: 4 of 4