[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-15248

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:07-cr-00034-WTM-WLB-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAMES LESTER KIMBRELL, III, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________

(November 17, 2016)

Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

James Kimbrell, III, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s 

Case: 15-15248 Date Filed: 11/17/2016 Page: 1 of 4 
2

denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentences based on 

Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Kimbrell was sentenced to 60 

months’ imprisonment for distributing pseudoephedrine and 108 months’ 

imprisonment for possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon. 

Kimbrell argues that Amendment 782 lowers his sentence for distributing 

pseudoephedrine. 

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

its authority under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317, 1319 

(11th Cir. 2012). The defendant, as the movant, bears the burden of establishing 

that a retroactive amendment actually lowers his guideline range. United States v. 

Hamilton, 715 F.3d 328, 337 (11th Cir. 2013). However, § 3582(c)(2) does not 

grant the court jurisdiction to consider extraneous resentencing issues, including 

collateral attacks on a sentence. United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 782 (11th 

Cir. 2000). 

Ordinarily, a district court may not modify a defendant’s term of 

imprisonment once it has been imposed. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). However, a district 

court may reduce a defendant’s sentence if the term of imprisonment was “based 

on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing 

Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). For a defendant to be eligible for such a 

reduction based on a subsequent amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines, the 

Case: 15-15248 Date Filed: 11/17/2016 Page: 2 of 4 
3

relevant amendment must be listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d). U.S.S.G. 

§ 1B1.10(a)(1). Because Amendment 782 is one of the listed amendments that 

applies retroactively, it may serve as the basis for a § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce 

sentence. U.S.S.G. §§ 1B1.10(a)(1), (d). Amendment 782 revises the drug 

quantity tables in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, resulting in a two-level reduction to the base 

offense level applicable to most drug offenses. See U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 782 

(2014). For defendants charged with 36.5 grams of pseudoephedrine, the base 

offense level was reduced from 26 to 24. Compare U.S.S.G. § 2D1.11(d)(8) 

(2007) to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.11(d)(8) (2015). However, under the Guidelines’ 

grouping rules, the higher adjusted offense level determines the applicable 

guideline range. U.S.S.G. § 3D1.1.

But the grounds upon which a district court may reduce a defendant’s 

sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) are narrow. United States v. Berry, 701 F.3d 

374, 376 (11th Cir. 2012). A district court may not reduce a defendant’s term of 

imprisonment unless a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements 

issued by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). A reduction is 

inconsistent with the Guidelines’ policy statement if the amendment does not have 

the effect of lowering the defendant’s “applicable guideline range.” U.S.S.G. 

§ 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). Thus, “[w]here a retroactively applicable guideline amendment 

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

Case: 15-15248 Date Filed: 11/17/2016 Page: 3 of 4 
4

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

reduction in sentence.” Hamilton, 715 F.3d at 337. 

The district court did not err when it denied Kimbrell’s § 3582(c)(2) motion 

because Amendment 782 does not lower his guideline range. Although 

retroactively applying Amendment 782 decreases Kimbrell’s base offense level for 

Count 1, his adjusted offense level for Count 2 remains higher, and under the 

Guidelines’ grouping rules, the higher adjusted offense level determines the 

applicable guideline range. U.S.S.G. § 3D1.1. Accordingly, Amendment 782 does 

not alter the guideline range underlying Kimbrell’s sentence and we affirm.

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 15-15248 Date Filed: 11/17/2016 Page: 4 of 4