[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 15

- 11977 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:07

- cr - 20799

- MGC

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus DUGGAN L. HIGGINBOTTOM, Defendant

- Appellant.

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

________________________ ( September 21, 2015 ) Before HULL , JULIE CARNES and FAY , Circu it Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 15-11977 Date Filed: 09/21/2015 Page: 1 of 52 Duggan Higginbottom, a federal prisoner convicted of drug and firearm offenses , appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his pro se 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 782 of the Sentencing Guidelines . After review, we affirm. 1 A district court may reduce a defendant’s prison term if the defendant was sentenced based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission and “if such a reduction is consistent w ith applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The applicable policy statements, found in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, provide that a sentence reduction is not authorized under § 3 582(c)(2) when the retroactive guide line amendment “does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). Thus, a sentence reduction is not authorized by an amendment that changes one guideline if the defendant’s sentence was based o n a different guideline. See United States v. Berry , 701 F.3d 374, 376

- 77 (11th Cir. 2012) (concluding that no § 3582(c)(2) reduction was authorized by Amendment 750, which lowered offense levels in § 2D1.1(c), the Drug Quantity Table, because the defenda nt’s offense level and resulting sentencing range were based on § 4B1.1, the career offender guideline). Moreover, a sentence reduction is not authorized where a defendant’s

1 “We review de novo a district court’s conclusions about the scope of its legal authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).” United States v. Jones , 548 F.3d 1366, 1368 (11th Cir. 2008).

Case: 15-11977 Date Filed: 09/21/2015 Page: 2 of 53 guidelines range and sentence are based on a statutory mandatory minimum. See
Un ited States v. Mills , 613 F.3d 1070, 1077

- 78 (11th Cir. 2010); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A). Here, the district court did not err in denying Higginbottom ’s § 3582(c)(2) motion based on Amendment 782 . Amendment 782 , like Amendment 750 before it, lowered the base offense level for many drug offenses by revising the Drug Quantity Table in § 2D1.1(c). See U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 782; see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d) (including Amendme nt 782 in the list of amendment s that may serve as the basis for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction). The problem for Higginbottom is that the sentencing court did not use § 2D1.1(c) to calculate Higginbottom’ s advisory guidelines range.
H igginbottom was convicted of both drug and firearm offenses

. Specifically, a jury convicted H igginbottom of unlawfully possessing a firearm and ammunition as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Count 1); knowingly possessing marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1 )(D) (Count 2); and knowingly using and carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (Count 3). At sentencing, Counts 1 and 2 were grouped together for purposes of calculating an advisory guidelines range

. S e e U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(c) . For Counts 1

Case: 15-11977 Date Filed: 09/21/2015 Page: 3 of 54 and 2, t he sentencing court used § 2K 2.1 , the guideline applicable to firearm offenses, rather than § 2D1.1(c), to calculate Higginbottom’s offense level because § 2K2.1 resulted in a higher offense level. See U.S.S.G . § 3D1.3(a) (providing that the offense level for counts grouped together under § 3D1.2(c) is the highest offense level of the counts in the group). With an adjusted offense level of 28 and a criminal history of VI, the advisory guidelines range for Coun ts 1 and 2 was 140 to 175. The sentence for Count 3 was imposed separately because it required a statutory mandatory minimum 60

- month consecutive sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). U ltimately, the district court impos ed a total 200

- month
sentenc e. In short, Higginbottom’s sentencing range for Counts 1 and 2 was based on § 2K 2.1 and his sentencing range for Count 3 was based on § 924(c). Thus, Amendment 782, which change d only the offense levels in § 2 D 1. 1 (c) , had no effect on H iggi nbottom ’s sentencing range for any of his counts of conviction

. The district court therefore did not have the authority to reduce Higginbottom’s sentence under § 3582(c)(2). See Berry , 701 F.3d at 376

- 77 ; Mills , 613 F.3d at
1077

- 78. To the extent Higginbottom chal lenges his original sentence, including arguing that it violated United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), these are not issues he can raise in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See 18

Case: 15-11977 Date Filed: 09/21/2015 Page: 4 of 55 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (limiting proceedings to cases in whi ch a retroactive guideline amendment affects the applicable sentencing range); United States v. Bravo , 203 F.3d 778, 780 (11th Cir. 2000) (explaining that all original sentencing determinations other than the effect of the amended guideline provision remai n unchanged in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding). Accordingly, because Hig ginbottom was not eligible for § 3582(c)(2) re lief based on Amendment 782, the district court properly denied his § 3582(c)(2) motion.
AFFIRMED . Case: 15-11977 Date Filed: 09/21/2015 Page: 5 of 5