[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 12

- 13 934 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 42 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 Amendment s 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. a pp. C, amend s. 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 g uideline 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 43 A sentence reduction is not authorized if the amendm ent 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 wh ich 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 leve l

— 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 44 imprisonment. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 (1991). The district court ultimately imposed a 420

- month sentence.
Had Amendment s 70 6 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 § 4B 1.1, 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 precede nt 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 reduct ion. 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 “l eave 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