[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-13934

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:92-cr-03057-LC-EMT-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CASWELL A. CRAWFORD,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

_________________________

(June 28, 2013)

Before HULL, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 12-13934 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Caswell A. Crawford, a federal prisoner convicted of a crack cocaine 

offense, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for 

a sentence reduction. Crawford’s § 3582(c)(2) motion was based on Amendments 

706 and 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which revised the crack cocaine 

quantity tables in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). See U.S.S.G. app. C, amends. 706, 750. 

The district court denied the § 3582(c)(2) motion because, due to Crawford’s status 

as a career offender, Amendment 750 had no effect on his applicable guidelines 

range. After review, we affirm.1

Pursuant to § 3582(c)(2), the district court may reduce a defendant’s prison 

term if the defendant was “sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a 

sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing 

Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. [§] 994(o).” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); see also

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1). However, “[w]here a retroactively applicable guideline 

amendment reduces a defendant’s base offense level, but does not alter the 

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

authorize a reduction in sentence.” United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1330 

(11th Cir. 2008); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) (providing that a 

§ 3582(c)(2) reduction is not authorized if the amendment “does not have the effect 

of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range”).

 

1

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

authority under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1326 (11th Cir. 2008).

Case: 12-13934 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 2 of 4 
3

A sentence reduction is not authorized if the amendment does not lower the 

defendant’s applicable guidelines range “because of the operation of another 

guideline or statutory provision.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A). As such, when 

a crack cocaine defendant is sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G.

§ 4B1.1, rather than under § 2D1.1(c)’s drug quantity table, the defendant is not 

eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction based on amendments to the crack cocaine 

offense levels in § 2D1.1(c) because the amendments did not lower the sentencing 

range upon which the defendant’s sentence was based. See Moore, 541 F.3d at 

1327-28.

Here, the district court did not err in denying Crawford’s § 3582(c)(2) 

motion because Crawford’s sentencing range of 360 months to life remains the 

same even after Amendments 706 and 750.

At his sentencing, Crawford was held accountable for 5 kilograms of crack 

cocaine. Using the drug quantity table, Crawford’s base offense level was 40 

under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(2) (1991). However, Crawford was designated a career 

offender. Under the career offender provision, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, Crawford’s base 

offense level was 37 and his criminal history category was VI. See U.S.S.G. 

§ 4B1.1(A) (1991). Following § 4B1.1’s instructions, the district court applied the 

greater offense level—level 40 under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(2)—with the criminal 

history category of VI, resulting in a guidelines range of 360 months to life 

Case: 12-13934 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 3 of 4 
4

imprisonment. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 (1991). The district court ultimately 

imposed a 420-month sentence.

Had Amendments 706 and 750 been in effect at Crawford’s original 

sentencing, his base offense level (for 5 kilograms of cocaine base) would have 

been 36, instead of 40. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(2) (2012).2

 However, because 

Crawford is a career offender, pursuant to § 4B1.1, the district court would have 

applied the greater offense level, which would have been the career offender 

offense level of 37. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b)(1). An offense level of 37 and a 

criminal history category of VI yields a guidelines range of 360 months to life, the 

same range that actually applied at Crawford’s original sentencing. See U.S.S.G. 

Sentencing Table, ch. 5, pt. A. Thus, Amendments 705 and 750 did not lower 

Crawford’s sentencing range, and, under our precedent in Moore, the district court 

lacked authority under § 3582(c)(2) to reduce Crawford’s sentence.

AFFIRMED.

 

2

The record does not support Crawford’s claim that his total offense level would be 35 

because of an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction. At his original sentencing, the district 

court denied Crawford’s request for an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction. To the extent 

Crawford argues he now is entitled to such a reduction, that argument is outside the scope of a 

§ 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1) (instructing district court to substitute 

only the amended guidelines provision and “leave all other guideline application decisions 

unaffected”); United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 782 (11th Cir. 2000) (stating that a 

§ 3582(c)(2) does not grant the court jurisdiction to consider extraneous resentencing issues).

Case: 12-13934 Date Filed: 06/28/2013 Page: 4 of 4