[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 15

- 10490

- BB Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:06

- cr - 14001

- KMM

- 2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus WILLIE FRANK GRAHAM , Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ ( December 1, 2015 ) Before WILSON , JORDAN and JULIE CARNES , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 15-10490 Date Filed: 12/01/2015 Page: 1 of 32 Willie Frank Graham , a pro se federal prisoner who was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G . § 4B1.1 , appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for sentence reduction. Graham seeks a reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines

. T h e district court hel d that Graham is ineligible for relief under Amendment 782 because he is a career
offender

. On appeal, G raham argues that his career offender statu s does not bar him from relief. Alternatively, he asserts the sentencing court erred in concluding he is a career offender and, therefore, he is entitled to a sentence reduction . B oth of these arguments fail. Accordingly, we affirm. First, Graham cannot obtain relief under Amendment 78 2 because his career offender status forestalls the amendment from lowering his guideline range. Section 3582(c)(2) only authorize s a sentence reduction if the relevant g uideline
amendment has “ the e ffect of lowering the defendant’ s applicable guideline

r ange.” U.S.S.G . § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). Amendment 782 reduced the base offense levels for most drug sentences calculated pursu ant to U.S.S.G . § 2D1.1(c). See U.S.S.G.App. C, amend. 782

. But, as a career offender , Graham is subject to the offense level and guideline range found in U.S.S.G . § 4B1.1

. As a result , applying Amendment 782 to Graham does not lower his guide line rang e. Under these circumstances, t he district court’s denial of Graham’s § 3582(c)(2) motion was
proper . See United States v. Glover , 686 F.3d 1203, 1206 (11th Cir. 2012) (“ a

Case: 15-10490 Date Filed: 12/01/2015 Page: 2 of 33 court cannot use an amendment to reduce a sentence in a particular case unless that amendment actually lowers the guidelines range in that case ”). Second , under the present procedural postur e, Graham cannot challenge the sentencing court’s determination that he i s a career offender

. Section 3582(c)(2) only “permits a sentence reduction within the narrow bounds established by” the guideline amendment s at issue

. Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 8 17, 831, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2694 (2010)

. “In making [a § 3582(c)(2) ] determination, the court shall substitute only the amendments

. . . for the corresponding guideline provisions that were applied when the defendant was sentenced and shall leave all other guideline

a

pplication decisions unaffected .” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1) ( emphasis added ). Amendment 782 does not affect U.S.S.G . § 4B1.1 (a) or any related career offender provisions

. See U.S.S.G.App. C, amend. 782. Accordingly, the sentencing court’s career offender decision is “ outside the scope of the proceeding authorized by § 3582(c)(2).” See Dillon , 560 U.S. at 831, 130 S. Ct. at 2694. AFFIRMED. Case: 15-10490 Date Filed: 12/01/2015 Page: 3 of 3