United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-1283

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Craig Steven Moore

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________

 Submitted: September 23, 2013

 Filed: November 4, 2013

____________

Before MURPHY, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

MELLOY, Circuit Judge.

Craig Moore appeals the district court's order denying his motion to reduce his

1

sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on Amendment 750 to the United

States Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.

The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

1

Western District of Missouri.
I.

In 2005, Moore pled guilty to conspiring to distribute more than fifty grams of

cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846 (2012). 

Moore's advisory guideline range was 135 to 168 months' imprisonment. The

government filed for enhanced penalties under 21 U.S.C. § 851, subjecting Moore to

the statutory minimum of mandatory life imprisonment. The government also filed

a motion to depart downward from the statutory minimum based on Moore's

substantial assistance. The court granted the government's motion and sentenced

Moore to 138 months' imprisonment, followed by 5 years' supervised release.

Amendment 750, which became effective November 2011, lowered the base

offense level for certain drug offenses. See United States v. Benson, 715 F.3d 705,

707 (8th Cir. 2013). In 2012, Moore moved for a sentence reduction based on 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), arguing that his advisory range under the amended guidelines

would be 70 to 87 months. The district court denied the motion, ruling that "Moore's

applicable guideline range has not been lowered by an amendment to the Sentencing

Guidelines" because the applicable guideline range used to sentence Moore was a

statutory mandatory minimum. Moore appeals.

II.

We review a district court's determination that it lacks authority to modify a

sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) de novo. United States v. Baylor, 556 F.3d

672, 673 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). 

The guidelines provide that "[w]here a statutorily required minimum sentence

is greater than the maximum of the applicable guidelines range, the statutorily

required minimum sentence shall be the guideline sentence." U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines Manual § 5G1.1(b) (2012). "This remains the rule even when a

-2-
sentencing judge has imposed a sentence below the statutory minimum due to the

defendant's substantial cooperation." United States v. Golden, 709 F.3d 1229, 1231

(8th Cir. 2013).

Moore argues the district court should have granted his § 3582(c)(2) motion

because he believes the "applicable guideline range," as defined by U.S.S.G.

§ 1B1.10, is separate from the "guideline sentence" referred to in Section 5G1.1(b). 

We disagree. Moore's argument ignores the commentary following U.S.S.G.

§ 1B1.10, which states that an amendment to the guidelines is not intended to affect

a sentence that was derived from a statutory mandatory minimum. See U.S.S.G.

§ 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A) (2012) ("[A] reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment

is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) . . . if . . . (ii) . . . the amendment does

not have the effect of lowering the defendant's applicable guideline range because of

the operation of another guideline or statutory provision (e.g., a statutory mandatory

minimum term of imprisonment)."); see also Golden, 709 F.3d at 1232 (rejecting a

defendant's argument that there is a distinction between "a guideline 'range' and

guideline 'sentence'" as used in the commentary following U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10). 

Moore's sentence was based on a statutory mandatory minimum term of

imprisonment. Accordingly, Amendment 750 does not apply, see United States v.

Lewis, 476 F. App'x 100, 101 (8th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (unpublished opinion), and

Moore is not eligible for relief under section § 3582(c)(2).

III.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-3-