[DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 67 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :0 5- cr-6 00 98 -WPD-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, vers us W ILLIAM MOYO, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jul y 13 , 20 12 ) Befo re MAR CUS, PRYOR a ndBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: W il li am Mo y o app eal s the de ni al of h is m ot io n t o re du ce h is sen te nc e. 18 Case: 11-15679 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 1 of 3U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ). W e aff irm. InSep te m

be r 20 09 , Mo y o p le ad edgu il ty to d is tri bu ti ng an d p os se ss in g wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e fi ve or m or e g ram s o f cra ckco cai ne . 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a). Bec au se Mo y o was res po ns ib le 49 .5 g ram s o f cra ckco cai ne an d was a care er of fen de r, hi s p res en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt p ro vi de d a n o ffen se lev el of 3 4, Uni te d S tate s Se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s M anua l § 4B 1.1 (b ) (No v. 2 00 8) , andth en reduc edth atlev el by thre e p oi nt s fo r Mo y o’s ac cep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il ity , id . § 3 E1.1 . W it h acri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory of VI, the rep ort p ro vi de d a n a dv is ory gu id el in e ran ge be twee n 1 88 an d 2 35 m on th s o f im pr is on m en t. At Mo y o’s s en te nc in g h eari ng , th e p art ie s ag reedth atMo y o s ho ul d b e se nt en cedas i f hi s o ffen se in vo lv edpo wde r co cai ne , whi chwou ldlo wer Mo y o’s to ta l o ffen se lev el to 29 an d s ub ject h im to a gu id el in e ran ge be twee n 1 51 an d 1 88 m on th s o f im

pr is on m en t. The di st ric t co urt ac cep te d the reco m m en da ti on to ap pl y th e lo wer o ffen se lev el an d s en te nc edMo y o t o 1 51 m on th s o f im pr is on m en t. On No ve m

be r 8, 2 01 1, M oyo m ov edto reduc e h is sen te nc e. 18 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) . Moyo arg ue d t ha t h e was en ti tl edto a two -le ve l re du ct io n o f hi s of fen se lev el un de r un sp eci fie d “ am en dm en ts ” to th e Fai r Sen te nc in g Actof 2 01 0 th atalt eredth e o ffen se lev el s i n S ect io n 2 D1.1 ap pl ic ab le to crac k c oc ai ne of fen se s. Mo y o a rg ue d t ha t h e h adno t re cei ve d t he ful l b en efi t i nt en de d b y th e 2 Case: 11-15679 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 2 of 3Act a ndth atth e Act“ sh ou ld. . . ap pl y to care er o ffen de rs th atare ch arg edwith co cai ne an [d ]/or c rackoff en se s.” The di stric t co urt d en ie d M oyo’s m ot io n t o re du ce. The di st ric t co urt ru le d th at“ USSG § 1B 1.1 on ly allo ws a re du ct io n fo r Am en dm en t 7 50 wher e th e or ig in al sen te nc e was de riv edfro m USSG § 2 D1.1 an d n otth e car eer o ffen de r pr ov is io n, USS G § 4 B1 .1.” Mo y o a rg ue s, fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n app eal , th athe was e nt it le d t o areduc ti on of sen te nc e und er Am en dm en t 7 06 , bu t tha t p ro vi si on , whi chbe cam e eff ect iv e in Nov em be r 20 07 , was n ota “ subs eque nt ” am en dm en t u nd er s ect io n 3 58 2( c)(2 ). The di st ric t co urt d idno t err. The de ni al of M oyo’s m ot io n t o re du ce i s AFFIRMED .

3 Case: 11-15679 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 3 of 3