[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-11690

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:93-cr-00209-SDM-EAJ-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

BOBBY EARL LEE, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(March 6, 2018)

Before MARCUS, MARTIN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Bobby Earl Lee, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his 

motion to reduce his sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on 

Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. He argues that, following the

Case: 17-11690 Date Filed: 03/06/2018 Page: 1 of 5 
2

commutation of his life sentence, he became eligible for further sentence reduction 

based on the amount of drugs that his offense involved. After careful review, we 

affirm.

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

authority under § 3582(c)(2) de novo. United States v. Colon, 707 F.3d 1255, 

1258 (11th Cir. 2013). A district court may modify a defendant’s term of 

imprisonment if the defendant was sentenced based on a sentencing range that 

subsequently has been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 

3582(c)(2). Any reduction, however, must be consistent with the Sentencing 

Commission’s policy statements. Id. A defendant is eligible for a sentence 

reduction under § 3582(c)(2) when an amendment listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d) 

lowers his guidelines range that was calculated by the sentencing court prior to any 

departure or variance. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(A)).

When the district court considers a § 3582(c)(2) motion, it first must 

recalculate the guidelines range under the amended guidelines. United States v. 

Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780 (11th Cir. 2000). When recalculating the guidelines 

range, it can only substitute the amended guideline and must keep intact all other 

guidelines decisions made during the original sentencing. Id. The district court 

next considers the § 3553(a) factors. Id. at 781. But if a defendant is not affected 

Case: 17-11690 Date Filed: 03/06/2018 Page: 2 of 5 
3

by an amendment, the court need not consider the § 3553(a) factors. See United 

States v. Webb, 565 F.3d 789, 793 (11th Cir. 2009). 

Amendment 782 provides a two-level reduction in the base offense levels for 

most drug quantities listed in the Drug Quantity Table in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). 

U.S.S.G. App. C, amend. 782. A district court is not authorized to reduce a 

defendant’s sentence under § 3582(c)(2) where a retroactively applicable 

guidelines amendment reduces his base offense level but does not alter the 

guidelines range upon which his sentence was based. United States v. Moore, 541 

F.3d 1323, 1328-30 (11th Cir. 2008). Specifically, when a drug offender is 

sentenced under the career-offender guideline in § 4B1.1, the guidelines range 

upon which his sentence is based is calculated from § 4B1.1, not § 2D1.1. United 

States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir. 2012). Because an amendment 

to § 2D1.1 does not affect a career offender’s guidelines range, he is ineligible for 

a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) based on an amendment to that guideline. 

Id. Moreover, “[t]he law is clear that a sentencing court lacks jurisdiction to

consider a § 3582(c)(2) motion, even when an amendment would lower the 

defendant’s otherwise-applicable Guidelines sentencing range, when the defendant 

was sentenced on the basis of a mandatory minimum.” United States v. Mills, 613 

F.3d 1070, 1078 (11th Cir. 2010). 

Case: 17-11690 Date Filed: 03/06/2018 Page: 3 of 5 
4

Here, the district court did not err in rejecting Lee’s § 3582 motion. For 

starters, Lee’s guideline-range minimum was determined by the mandatory 

minimum sentence for Count 2. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). As a result, although 

Amendment 782 would reduce his base offense level if it were calculated based on 

drug weight, it would not alter the guidelines-range minimum because the 

guidelines range would still be based on the mandatory minimum sentence. See

Mills, 613 F.3d at 1077-78. 

In any event, even absent his mandatory-minimum sentence, Lee would 

have been sentenced as a career offender. As we’ve held, when a drug offender is 

sentenced under the career-offender guideline in § 4B1.1, his total offense level 

and guideline range is determined by the career-offender guideline in § 4B1.1, not 

§ 2D1.1. See Lawson, 686 F.3d at 1321. While Lee argues he was not sentenced 

as a career offender, the district court and his counsel both noted at sentencing that 

he was a career offender and would face a range of 360-months to life, plus the 

consecutive § 924(c) sentence, based on his applicable guideline calculations.

Accordingly, the district court did not err in concluding that Lee was 

ineligible for a sentence reduction pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782, 

and it therefore did not need to consider the § 3553(a) factors. See Webb, 565 F.3d 

at 793. Moreover, because Lee is not entitled to relief based on at least two 

grounds -- the statutory mandatory minimum and the career offender guideline --

Case: 17-11690 Date Filed: 03/06/2018 Page: 4 of 5 
5

we have no occasion to address whether a commuted sentence is eligible for 

further reduction under § 3582(c)(2).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 17-11690 Date Filed: 03/06/2018 Page: 5 of 5