[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-14717

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:99-cr-00029-WTH-TBS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EDWARD LEE BARTLEY,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

__________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(April 12, 2013)

Before MARTIN, JORDAN, and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Edward Bartley, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his 

motion for a reduction of sentence, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). After 

review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm.

Case: 12-14717 Date Filed: 04/12/2013 Page: 1 of 4 
2

On August 4, 2000, Mr. Bartley pled guilty to possessing cocaine base with 

intent to distribute in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The pre-sentence 

investigation report (“PSI”) indicated that Mr. Bartley’s total offense level was 25 

based upon the quantity of cocaine base (23.5 grams) as well as adjustments for 

accepting responsibility and assisting authorities by providing timely and complete 

information. Mr. Bartley, however, qualified as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 

4B1.1, which subjected him to an enhanced offense level of 31 and a sentencing 

guideline range of 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment. The district court sentenced 

Mr. Bartley to 211 months’ imprisonment.

On August 23, 2012, Mr. Bartley filed a § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence 

reduction based on Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines and the Fair 

Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2374 (2010). The district 

court denied Mr. Bartley’s motion because he was sentenced “as a career offender

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, and as such, his applicable sentencing guideline 

range is not affected by Amendment 750.” D.E. 72 at 1. See also D.E. 74 (holding 

that Fair Sentencing Act did not apply to Mr. Bartley’s case). This appeal 

followed.

“In a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding, ‘we review de novo the district court's legal 

conclusions regarding the scope of its authority under the Sentencing Guidelines.’” 

United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1326 (11th Cir. 2008). Under § 3528(c)(2), 

Case: 12-14717 Date Filed: 04/12/2013 Page: 2 of 4 
3

a district court may reduce the terms of a defendant’s imprisonment if the sentence 

was based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the 

Sentencing Commission. If, however, “a retroactively applicable guideline 

amendment reduces a defendant's base offense level, but does not alter the 

sentencing range upon which his or her sentence was based, § 3582(c)(2) does not 

authorize a reduction in sentence.” Moore, 541 F.3d at 1330.

In this case, Mr. Bartley was not eligible for a reduced sentence because he 

was sentenced as a career offender under § 4B1.1. His sentencing guidelines 

remained unchanged because § 4B1.1 was not affected by Amendment 750. See id. 

at 1327 (holding that defendants sentenced as career offenders under § 4B1.1 are 

not entitled to sentence reductions based on an amendment to the base offense 

levels for crack cocaine offenses in § 2D1.1). Mr. Bartley is also not entitled to 

relief under the Fair Sentencing Act for two reasons. First, the Fair Sentencing Act 

is not a guidelines amendment by the Sentencing Commission and, therefore, 

cannot be the basis for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). See United States 

v. Berry, 701 F.3d 374, 377 (11th Cir. 2012). Second, Mr. Bartley was sentenced 

before the effective date of the act, which is not retroactively applicable to him. 

See id. (“We agree with every other circuit to address the issue that there is ‘no 

evidence that Congress intended [the FSA] to apply to defendants who had been 

sentenced prior to the August 3, 2010 date of the Act's enactment.’”) (citation 

Case: 12-14717 Date Filed: 04/12/2013 Page: 3 of 4 
4

omitted). See also United States v. Hippolyte, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2013 WL 

978695, at *5 (11th Cir. Mar. 14, 2013) (same). Therefore, the district court

correctly denied Mr. Bartley’s § 3582(c)(2) motion.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 12-14717 Date Filed: 04/12/2013 Page: 4 of 4