[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-10683

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:09-cr-60304-KMM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

CHARLES THERION CLAYTON, 

a.k.a. Charles Clayton, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(July 22, 2015)

Case: 15-10683 Date Filed: 07/22/2015 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JILL PRYOR, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Charles Therion Clayton is a federal prisoner who pleaded guilty to 

possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine. He now appeals 

pro se the denial of a motion for a sentence reduction, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 

3582(c)(2), based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district 

court denied the motion: Clayton’s career-offender status precluded a sentence 

reduction. No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.

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

its authority in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. United States v. James, 548 F.3d 

983, 984 (11th Cir. 2008). 

A district court may reduce a defendant’s term of imprisonment if the 

defendant was sentenced based on a sentencing range that was later lowered by the 

Sentencing Commission and “if such a reduction is consistent with applicable 

policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); 

see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1). A reduction of a defendant’s term of 

imprisonment is unauthorized under section 3582(c)(2) when the retroactive 

Case: 15-10683 Date Filed: 07/22/2015 Page: 2 of 4 
3

guideline amendment “does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s 

applicable guideline range.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). 

The district court committed no error in denying Clayton a sentence 

reduction based on Amendment 782. Amendment 782 reduced -- by two -- the 

base offense levels for most drug sentences calculated pursuant to the Drug 

Quantity Table, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). U.S.S.G. App. C, amend. 782. But Clayton 

was sentenced using the offense level and guideline range for career offenders in 

U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, and not the offense level for drug quantity in U.S.S.G. 

§ 2D1.1(c). Amendment 782 resulted in no lowering of Clayton’s guideline range; 

Clayton is ineligible for section 3582(c)(2) relief. See United States v. Lawson, 

686 F.3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir. 2012). 

Clayton’s reliance on Freeman v. United States, 131 S.Ct. 2685 (2011), is 

misplaced. In Freeman, the Supreme Court considered whether defendants who 

entered into plea agreements recommending a particular sentence, pursuant to 

Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1)(C), were eligible for a sentence reduction under section 

3582(c)(2). Here, Clayton’s plea agreement contained no agreed-upon sentence or 

guidelines range. Thus, Freeman is inapplicable.

Because Clayton’s guideline range remained unchanged as a result of 

Amendment 782, no ex post facto violation occurred. See United States v. Colon, 

707 F.3d 1255, 1258-59 (11th Cir. 2013) (no ex post facto problem exists “[s]o 

Case: 15-10683 Date Filed: 07/22/2015 Page: 3 of 4 
4

long as the effect of post-conduct amendments to the guidelines is not to increase a 

defendant’s punishment beyond what it would have been without those 

amendments.”). And the district court committed no error in treating U.S.S.G. § 

1B1.10 as binding. See Dillon v. United States, 130 S.Ct. 2683 (2010). 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 15-10683 Date Filed: 07/22/2015 Page: 4 of 4