The pa rties have waived oral ar g ument, and we unanimously ag ree that oral a

rg ument is not 1 neede d in this case. F ed. R. App. P. 34(a)

.

NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 11a0145n.06 No. 09-4386 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. MI CH AE LTU CK ER, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P E AL F ROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

T H E N O R T HE RN D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

B EF OR E: ME RRI TT , CLAY , a nd GR I F F I N, Cir c uit

Judg e s. GRI FF I N, Circuit J udg e. Michae l Tucker appea ls the district court’s orde r deny ing his motion for a

sentenc e re duction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)( 2). For the re asons that follow, we aff irm. 1 I. On Au gu s t 29, 2006, Michae l Tucker was indicted on one count of possession with intent to d i s t ri b u t e 5 0 g rams or more of coc aine ba se, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)( 1)(A) (iii). On S eptember 22, 2006, the gover nment filed an information under 21 U.S.C. § 851 and invoked the pe nalty

enhanc ement provisions of 21 U.S.C . § 841(b)( 1)(A) , based upon a priorNo. 09-4386

USA v. Tuck

er

The fir st offens e le v e l w

hich incorpor ated the statutory mandatory

minimum in this case wa s 2 level 32. The Guideline off ense le vel would thus become 240 to 262 months of imprisonm ent. T h e Pr o b a ti o n O f

f ic e n o te d th a t th e G u id e li n e c a lc u lati o n s c o n ta in e d in th e PS R did not 3 cor r e s p o n d to th e f

igu r e s c o n te mp late d b y th e p le a a g r e e me n t b e c a u s e T u c k e r w a s n o t, in fac t, a - 2 - felony drugconviction for T ucker

. This had the effe ct of ra ising his statutory mandatory

minimum sentenc e fr om 120 to 240 months

. Subsequently , Tucke r entered into a written plea ag ree ment with the g overnme nt and pled g uilty as cha rg ed. The parties sti pulated that the amount of c ocaine base distributed by Tucke r wa s at least 50 g rams but less than 150 g rams of c rac k coca ine, corr esponding to a base offe nse leve l of 32 . T uc ke r a c kn ow le dg e d that if the pe na lty e nh anc e me nt a

pp lie d, “ the n h is b a se of

fe ns e le ve l w ill be the level first containing the 240 month mandatory minimum sentenc e in [his] applicable criminal history cate g ory .” The g overnme nt ag reed t o re co m mend to the cour t a three -leve l reduc tion for 2

a c c e pta nc e of res po nsibi lity

and a do wnwa rd de pa rt ur e of no mor e tha

n f our l e ve ls p ur su ant t o U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 for Tuc ker’ s substantial assistance. The Prese ntence I nvestig ation Report (“ PSR ”) pr epar ed by the Probation Off

ice noted that Tu c ke r f a c e d a mand a tor y min imum 24 0- mon th s e nte nc e . T he PSR a ssi g ne d T uc ke r a ba se of fe ns e le ve l of 32 wh ic h, c on sis te nt wit

h the te rm s o f t

he ple a a g re e me nt, wa s th e n lo we re d b y thr e e le ve ls pursuant to U.S.S.G. §§ 3E1.1(a) and (b) , and four levels pursua

nt to U.S.S .G. § 5K1.1 , for
acc eptanc e of r esponsibility and substantial assistance , respe ctively . Tucke r’s a djusted offe nse leve l was 25 a nd his criminal history

cate g ory was VI , with a resultant advisory Guidelines rang e of 110 to 1 37 mon ths

. 3No. 09-4386

USA v. Tuck

er

car eer offe nder. The PSRadjusted the off ense le vels ac cording ly

. - 3 - At the sentenc ing he aringheld on April 3, 2007, the district cour t ac k n o wl ed ged the applicable mandatory

minimum sentenc e of 240 months, but g rante d the g overnme nt’s motions for a four -leve l downwar d depar ture for substantial cooper ation under U .S.S.G. § 5K1.1, and a thr eelevel reduction for acce ptance of re sponsibili ty , there by pierc ing the mandatory

minimum sentenc e. The c ourt sentenc ed Tuc ker to 110 months of i mprisonment, followed by five y ear s of supervise d rele ase. Tuc ker did not file a direc t appea l. On J uly 21, 2009, Tucke r filed a motion for sentenc e re duction pursuan t t o 1 8 U. S.C. § 3582(c) (2), c iting Amendme nt 706 to the United States SentencingGuidelines, which r educe d offe nse leve ls related to c onvictions for coc aine ba se. I n an order is sued on November 9, 2009, the dis tr ic t c ourt

de nie d T uc ke r’ s mo tio n, ho ldi ng : [Defenda nt] was subjec t to a [m andator y minimum ] sentence. There fore , even a pp lyingthe tw o le ve l re du c tio n in the or ig ina l c a lc ulatio n, the of fe ns e le ve l w ou ld have to be re- set to corr espond [to] a guideline ra ng e including t he [mandatory minimum ] of 240 m onths; and, the downwa rd depa rtures f or [substantial assist ance ] wo uld c ome of f t he a dju ste d o ffen se lev e l and no t th e re du c e d o ri g ina l le ve l, resulting in the same sente nce. See [ United States v. ] Johnson , 5 64 F .3 d 4 19 (6th Cir. [ ] 2009). Tu c ke r n owa

pp e a ls, arguin g that the dis tr ic t cou rt e rr e d in denying his mot ion be c a us e his sentenc e wa s based upon the a mount of cr ac k co ca i ne involved in the ca se and not upon the mandatory

minimum sentenc e and, c ontrary to United States v. Book

er , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and Kimbrough v. United States , 552 U.S. 8 5 (2 0 0 7 ), t h e dis trict court f ailed to consider

the fa ctorsNo. 09-4386

USA v. Tuck

er

- 4 - enumer ated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and tr ea t ed t h e Guidelines rang e as ma ndatory . Howeve r, Tucke r’s a

rg uments are unavailingin light of this court’s c lear ly established pre cede nt. II. We rev ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’ s d e n ia l o f a mo ti o n to mo d if y a s e n te n c e u n d e r 1 8 U.S.C. § 3582 for a n abuse of

discretion. United States v. Pay ton , 617 F.3d 911, 912 ( 6th Cir. 2010); United Sta te s v . M oo re , 582 F.3d 641, 644 (6th Cir. 2009) . 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is narrowin scope a nd “‘a uth o r iz e [s] only

a limited adjustment to an otherwise f inal sentenc e and not a

plenar y rese ntencing proce eding .’” United States v. Mc Pherson , 6 2 9 F. 3 d 6 0 9 , 6 1 1 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 1 1 ) ( q u o t i n g Dillon v. United States , — U.S. — , 130 S. Ct . 2683, 2691, 177 L .Ed.2d 271 (2010)) . Thus, the district court was limited to consideringwhether Amendment 706 applied r etroa ctively to T ucker ’s sentenc e, and on appea l “the only

cog nizable issue is whether the district c ourt err ed in deny ing the motion.” Id

. (c i t i n g United States v. Pe rdue , 572 F.3d 288, 290 ( 6th Cir. 2009)). I n McPhe rson , in circumstanc es ana logous to the pr esent c ase, we reje cted the def endant’ s
argume nt that Ame ndme nt 706 sh ou ld be a pp lie d r e tr oa c tiv e ly

to r e du c e his of

fe ns e le ve ls f

or his
cra ck-c oca ine sentenc e. The defe ndant pled guilty , pursuant to a plea ag ree ment, to one count of possession with intent to di stribute cra ck coc aine, possession with intent to distribute cocaine , and being a fe lon in possession of a fire arm. 629 F .3d at 610. With a total offense l evel of 33 and a criminal history cate g ory of I V, the advisory Guidelines rang e was 188 to 235 months. Id. Howeve r, beca use a statutorily

mandated se ntence was require d under 18 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)( A) a nd 851, the defe ndant’s advisory

Guidelines rang e of imprisonment be came 240 months. Id . At sentenc ing, theNo. 09-4386

USA v. Tuck

er

- 5 - district court g rante d the g overnme nt’s substantial assistance motion under U .S.S.G. § 5K1.1 and, based on a

total offense level of 32 a nd a cr iminal hist ory

cate g ory of I V, sentenc ed the de fenda nt to 168 months of imprisonm ent. Id . The c ourt denied the def endant’ s motion t o reduc e his sentenc e pursuant to 18 U. S
. C
. § 3 5 82(c) (2), f inding that the de fenda

nt was not elig ible for a sentenc e reduc tion under Amendment 706 beca use his se ntence was based on the mandatory minimum 240- month sentence

. Id. a t 61 0- 11 . O n a pp e a l, w e a ff

ir me d, e xpla ini ng : Section 3582(c) (2) a llows a sentenc e modification “in the case of a de fenda nt who has bee n sentenc ed to a ter m of imprisonment based on a sentencing rang e that has subsequently

been lowe red by

the Sentencing Commi ssion .

. . afte r consider ing the fac tors set forth in [18 U.S.C .] section 3553(a) to the ex tent that they are applicable , if such a r eduction is consistent with applicable p o l i cy s tatements issued by the Se nte nc ingCom mis sio n. ” 18 U. S.C. § 3 58 2( c )( 2) ; see also USSG § 1B1.10( a). “ A r e d u c ti o nin th e d e f e n d an t’ s te r

m o f im p r is o n me n t i s n o t c o n s is te n t
. . . [i f ]
. . . [a ]n amendment [to the Guidelines] does not have the eff ect of loweringthe def

endant’ s applicable g uideline rang e.” United States v. Pe mbrook , 609 F.3d 381, 383 ( 6th Cir. 2010) (c itation omit ted). I n United States v. J

ohnson , 564 F.3d 419, 423 ( 6th Cir.), cer t. denied, — U.S. — , 130 S. Ct . 318, 175 L .Ed.2d 21 0 (2 0 0 9 ), we held that a de fenda nt subject to a statutory mandatory

minimum sentenc e is not elig ible for a re d uction under § 35 82 (c )( 2) bec a

us e Am e ndme nt 7 06 do e s n ot l ow e r t he de fe nd ant’ s a

pp lic a ble g uideline rang e. I n Johnson , the defe ndant’s cra ck coca ine g uideline rang e was 235 to 293 months but, beca

use he was subject to a mandatory minimum sentenc e of 240 months, his guideline ra

ng e becam e 2 4 0 to 293 months. Id . at 420-21. F ollowing the g rant of a USSG § 5K1.1 motion by the g overnme nt, the district court imposed a 108-month sentenc e. Id . at 42 1. J oh ns on late r f ile d a § 3 58 2( c )( 2) mot ion

to reduc e sente nce, ba sed on Amendme nt 706, which the district cour t denied. Id . at 421. We affirm ed , h o l d i n g that J ohnson “wa s not in fact sente nced ba sed on a Guidelines rang e that was subseque ntly reduc ed. Rather , his sentence was ba sed on the [240-month] mandatory minimum imposed by

21 U.S.C. § 841(b)( 1)(A) , which rema ined uncha

ng ed by Guidelines Amendme nt 706.” Id . at 423. Her e, McPher son’s sentenc e wa s not based on a guidelines ra n ge that was subsequently reduc ed. L ike the defe ndant in Johnson , it wa s b a se d o n th e 24 0- mon thNo. 09-4386

USA v. Tuck

er

- 6 - minimum sentenc e mandated by statute. Be cause Amendment 706 did not lower the statutor y ma n d a to r y minimum term of imprisonment, McPherson w as not elig ible for a sente nce r educti o n p u rs uant to § 3582(c) (2), a nd the district court did not err by denying Mc Pherson’s motion. Id . at 611-12. Se e als o U nite d S tates v . S tif f , No. 09-1115 , 2 0 1 1 W L 219904, at *2-4 (6th Cir. J an . 2 4 , 2 0 1 1 ) ( u np u

b l i s h ed ) ( fo l l o wi n g Johnson and holdi ng that the defendant was not eligible f or § 3582(c) (2) se ntence reduc tion because his sentence was ba sed on the statutory mandatory

m i n i m u m s e n t e n c e , r a t h e r t h ano nt h e G u i d e l i n e s f o r c r a c k c o c a i n e o f

f e ns e s) ; United States v. Parker , 358 F. App’ x 632, 634 (6th Cir. 2009) (unpublished) ( “L ike the def endant in Johnson , Parker is not entitl ed to a se ntence reduc t i o n b eca use he w as not in fac t sentence d based on a Guidelines ra

ng e that has b ee n s u bsequently lowere d. His sentence instead wa s based on the mandatory

minimum impo s ed by

21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)( A), whic h rema ins unchang ed by Amendment 706.”) (citation omitted). He re , in c ir c ums tanc e s vir tua lly ind ist inguis ha

ble fr om McPhe rson and Johnson , Tucke r’s
argume nts fa il. Al tho ug h T uc ke r a rgue s th a t th e sta

rt ingpo int

us e d by the dis tr ic t c ourt to c a lc ulate the downwa

rd depa rture wa s the Guidelines ra ng e and ba se off

ense le vel cor

respondingto the possession of betwe en 50 and 150 gra ms of cra ck coc aine, he conce des that his base of fense level of 32 wa s the first off

ense le vel which incor

porate d the statutory

mandatory

minimum sentenc e of 24 0 mo nth s, a s se t f

or th i n h is p le a

a g re e me nt. At

the se nte nc inghe ari ng , the dis tr ic t c ourt e xpre ssl y
no te d th e mand a tor

y min imum and

us e d it a s the sta

rt ing po int

fo r t he do wnwa

rd de pa rt ur e . T hu s, Tucke r’s a

rg ument to the contra

ry is without m erit.No. 09-4386

USA v. Tuck

er

- 7 - Moreove r, as we have held in a rec ent spate of case s, in the wake of the Supr em e C ourt’s decision in Dillon , it is now clear that “[g]iven the l imited scope and purpose of § 3582(c) (2), .

. . proce eding s under that se ction do no t impli cate the intere sts identified in Booke r [,] ” and “ the
reme dial aspec t of the [ Booke r ] C ourt’s dec ision [does not] appl[ y ] t o proce eding s under that se ction

. . . .” Dillon , 1 30 S. Ct . at 26 92 -9 3; se e als o U nite d S tates v . B owe rs , 6 15 F .3 d 7 15 , 7 26 -2 7 ( 6th Cir . 2 01 0) ; Sti

ff , 2 01 1 WL

21 99 04 , at *3 -4 ; United States v. Ingol , No. 09-4095, 2010 WL5230876,
a t* 2 ( 6 t h C i r . D e c . 2 0 , 2 0 1 0 ) ( u np u bli sh e d) ; Uni ted States v. J ohnson , N o . 0 9

- 4 0 0 4 , 2 0 1 0 WL 48 79 18 8, a t *2 (6 th Cir

. No v. 23 , 2 01 0) (u np ub lis he d) ; Un ite d S

tates v . H all , N o . 0 9

- 4 1 0 4 , 2 0 1 0 WL 48 10 22 0, a t *2 (6 th C ir . N ov . 1 9, 20 10 ) ( un pu bli sh e d) ; United Sta t es v. Robinson , No. 08-6067, 2010 WL 4721070, at *2 (6th Cir. Nov. 15, 2010) ( unpublished). Acc ording ly , the district court did not abuse its discre tion in deny ing T ucker ’s motion for a sentenc e re duction based on A mendment 706. III
. For these re asons, we a ffirm the judg ment of the district cour t.