Daniel M. F riedman, Senior Circ uit J u d ge for the United States Court of Appea ls for the * Fe dera l Circuit, sit ting by desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0633n.06 No. 09-4087 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UN I TE D ST AT ES O F AM ERI CA Plaintiff-Appellee , v. M I CH A E LM E A D O WS De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI ST R I CT COURT FOR THE N O R T H E R

N D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

B e fo re : MO OR E, SUT TO N, and F RI ED MA

N, Cir c uit

Judg e s. * SUTTON, Circuit J udg e. Micha el Meadow s appea ls the district c ourt’s denial of his moti on for a sentenc e r eduction in t he af termath of the SentencingCommi ssion’s decision to lower the g uidelines’ ra

ng e for cra ck-c ocaine offe nses. Mea dows, howeve r, wa s sen t en ce d as a care er offe nder, pr ec l u d i n g t he prior c rac k-coc aine guidelines from impac ting his sentenc e. See United States v. Perdue , 5 72 F .3 d 2 88 (6 th C ir . 2 00 9) . We the re fo re a ff ir m.
I.
Meadow s pled g uilty

to one count of aiding a

nd abetting the distribution of 181.55 gr ams of
cra ck co ca i ne. See 21 U. S.C. § 8 41 (a ). At se nte nc ing , th e dis tr ic t c ourt de te rm ine d th a t th is conviction g ener ated a

base of fense level of 34. SeeU.S.S.G
. § 2 D1
. 1
. Meadow s had a pr iorNo. 09-4087

US A v . M e ad ows

- 2 - conviction for a g g ravated drugtraff icking , howeve r, making him a car eer offe nder, see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, a nd re- setting his off

ense le vel to 37. Reductions for ac cepta nce of responsibility

and
s u b s t an t i a l a s s i s t an c e t o t h e g o v e r n m e n tyi e l d e d

an o f f e n s e l e v e l o f

2 8 an d a c r i m i n a l h i s t o r

y o f V I, wh ic h in te rs e c t at a

g uid e lin e s r ang e of 14 0– 17 5 mont hs
. Th e dis tr ic t court se nte nc e d M e a do ws to 140 months. Meadows did not appea l his conviction or sentenc e.
I n November

2007, the SentencingCommi ssion adopted Amendment 706 to the Sentenc ing Guidelines, lowering the offe nse level under § 2D1.1 for coca ine-ba se off enses. See U.S.S.G. Supp. App. C, amend. 706. Seve ral months later, the Commi ssion made Ame ndment 706 retroa ctive. See U.S.S.G. Supp. App. C , amend. 713 ( eff ec tive Marc h 2008). In J uly 2009, Meadow s filed a § 3582(c) (2) motion to reduc e his se ntence . The court de nied the motion due to Meadow s’ status as
a ca ree r off ender
. II.
Whe n a c ou

rt se nte nc e s a

de fe nd ant “ based on a sente ncing rang e that has subse quently been low e re d b y

the Se nte nc ingCom mis si on ,” it may re du c e the se nte nc e if

that “ is c on sis te nt w ith applicable policy

statements issued by

the SentencingCommi ssion.” 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3582(c)( 2) (empha sis added)
. T he guidelines are to the same e ffe ct, per mitti ng a cour

t to “reduc e” suc h a “def endant’ s term of imprisonment” under § 3582( c)( 2), unless the “ amendment . . . doe s not have the e ff e c t of low e ri ngthe de fe nd ant’ s a pp lic a ble g uid e lin e ra

ng e .” U. S.S. G. § 1 B 1. 10 . T he statut e and the guidelines thus establish a g ener al rule ( that defe n dants servingsentenc es implicatingNo. 09-4087

US A v . M e ad ows

- 3 - su bs e qu e ntl y

re du c e d guid e lin e s ma

y se e k a re du c tio n in

the ir se nte nc e ) a

nd e xce pti on s to tha

t r ule (that, for example, no reduc tion is appropriate if the orig inal sentenc e wa s not “based on” the rele vant g uid eline or if a reduc tion would be inconsistent with policy statements issued by

the Se nte nc ingCom mis sio n) . M e a do ws ’ p ro ble m is that th e e xce pti on , not the ru le , a pp lie s. To de ter mi ne whe the r M e a do ws ’ s e nte nc e wa s “ ba se d o n” the c ra c k- c oc a ine g uid e lin e s, “ we loo k to what the distric t court a ctually said and did at the or igina l sentencing .” United States v. Ham eed, No. 09-3259, slip op. at 7 (6th Cir. J uly 26, 2010). Since the district c ourt relied sole ly on the ca ree r offe nder guidelines, and nothi ng else, to deter mine the guidelines rang e, Meadows is prec luded from showing t hat his orig inal sentenc e wa s “base d on” the pr ior cra ck-c ocaine g uideline or that the amendment other

wise would “ha

ve the e ffe ct of lowe ring ” his “a pplicable guideline ra

ng e.”
Meadow s challeng es this interpretation of the statute and g uideline, then ar g ues that, eve n if it is correc t, §1B1.10 must be “inva lid” under United States v. Book er , 543 U.S. 220 (2005)

. Ap pe lla nt’ s B r. a t 6–7. We h a ve se e n th is m ov ie be fo re , a nd it d oe s n ot e nd

we ll f or the de fe nd ant. I n Perdue , we c onfirmed that the exception to § 3582(c)(2) applies if the c ourt orig inally sentenc ed the de fe nd ant a s a

c are e r o ff

e nd e r. “ [A] di str ic t c ourt may no t g ra

nt a mot ion fo r a re du c tio n in
se nte nc e pr e mis e d up on Am e ndme nt 70 6 if the de fe nd ant se e kin g the re du c tio n wa s ori g ina lly sentenc ed as a

car eer offe nder.” 572 F.3d at 292. Section 3582(c) (2) a pplies, we a dded, only

when a def endant’ s sentence was “ based on” a sente ncing rang e that wa s s ubsequently lowere d. Id. at 292–93. Be cause the cour t based Perdue ’s orig inal g uidelines range on the ca ree r-of fende rNo. 09-4087

US A v . M e ad ows

- 4 - g uideline, not the cr ack- coca ine g uideline, Amendment 706 did not af fec t his sentence. So too for Me a do ws . Perdue also reje cted a Bo ok e r challeng e to the constitutionality of § 1B1.10, rea soning that the cour t had tether ed its holdi n g t o t h e “base d on” languag e of § 3582( c)( 2), not the g uidelines l an gu age i n § 1 B1
. 1 0
. “E v en as s u m i n g arguendo that th e Se nte nc ingCom mis sio n h a s n o a uth or ity to limi t the district c ourt’s ability to r educe Perdue’ s sentenc e,” the court e x plained, “Cong ress may
cer tainly cabin the court’s discr etion, and it does so expressly in the text of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)( 2).” Perdue , 572 F.3d at 292. Making matters worse for Me adows, the Supre me Court rec ently held that Bo ok e r does not even apply

to § 3582(c)( 2) sentenc ing r eductions. See D illon v. United States , 130 S. Ct . 2683, 2692 (2010).
L ast of all, Mea dows insists t hat, in view of the di strict court’s nine-point reduc tion during the orig inal sentenc ing hear ing, it must not have sentence d Meadow s as a c are er of fende r, there by establi s h i n g that the ca ree r-of fende r g uideline (§ 4B 1.1) is not the “applica ble g uideline.” Ap pe lla nt’ s B r. a t 18 . B ut M e a do ws c ite s n o a uth or ity fo r t his argume nt, and

we have re

je c te d it befor e. See U

nited States v. Ra , 357 F. App’ x 645, 647 (6th Cir. 2009) (“ [O] ffe nse-leve l reduc tions did no t re nd e r [de fe nd ant’ s] care e r of fe nd e r de sig natio n in a

pp lic a ble .” ); see also Hame ed , No. 09- 3259, slip op. at 13 (applica ble guideline rang e determined i n ref ere nce to the “ corr ect point from which the de parture should have be en mea sured” ); United States v. Bridgewater , 606 F.3 d 258, 261–62 (6th Cir. 2010) (downw ard va rianc e did not implicate Amendmen t 7 0 6 when the c are er offe nder guideline “se rved a s t h e b en ch m ark f or sentenc ing” ). Mea dows’ sente nce w as “de rivedNo. 09-4087

US A v . M e ad ows

- 5 - exclusively fr o m the Guidelines’ una mended c are er- offe nder pr ovision set forth in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1( a), not the a

mended dr

ug -quantity

t ab l e l i s t ed at U.S .S.G. § 2D1.1,” Perdue , 572 F.3d at 292, and ac cording ly

he has no c og nizable basis for obtaining relief
. III
. F or the se re a so ns , w e a ff

ir m.