[DO NOT PUBLISH]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 3 
2

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. The district court held that 

Graham is ineligible for relief under Amendment 782 because he is a career 

offender. On appeal, Graham argues that his career offender status 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. Both 

of these arguments fail. Accordingly, we affirm.

First, Graham cannot obtain relief under Amendment 782 because his career 

offender status forestalls the amendment from lowering his guideline range. 

Section 3582(c)(2) only authorizes a sentence reduction if the relevant guideline

amendment has “the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline 

range.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). Amendment 782 reduced the base offense 

levels for most drug sentences calculated pursuant 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 guideline range. Under these 

circumstances, the 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 3 
3

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 posture, Graham cannot challenge the 

sentencing court’s determination that he is a career offender. Section 3582(c)(2)

only “permits a sentence reduction within the narrow bounds established by” the 

guideline amendments at issue. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 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 

application 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