[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-11378

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:05-cr-00022-LC-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

CLIFFORD LAMAR VASON, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(September 26, 2017)

Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Clifford Vason, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his 

motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). After careful review, 

we affirm.

Case: 17-11378 Date Filed: 09/26/2017 Page: 1 of 3 
2

I.

In 2005, Vason pled guilty to one count of kidnapping and transportation of 

persons in interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1), and one count of 

possession of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i). He was sentenced to 181-months imprisonment. 

In 2017, Vason filed a motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2). He argued that an amendment to the United States Sentencing 

Guidelines § 3B1.2 should allow him to receive a reduction to his guidelines 

sentencing range. The district court denied his motion, ruling it was “not 

authorized to reconsider a sentence relative to commentary in [§ 3B1.2].” This 

appeal followed. 

II.

We review de novo whether the district court has authority to reduce a 

sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Melvin, 556 F.3d 1190, 

1191 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). Section 3582(c)(2) allows a court to modify a 

prison sentence if it was imposed “based on a sentencing range that has 

subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission . . . if such a reduction 

is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing 

Commission.” The applicable policy statement, contained in Guidelines § 1B1.10, 

allows courts to reduce prison sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) only if the 

Case: 17-11378 Date Filed: 09/26/2017 Page: 2 of 3 
3

guideline amendment is listed in Guidelines § 1B1.10(d). USSG § 1B1.10(a); see

United States v. Melton, 861 F.3d 1320, 1326 (11th Cir. 2017).

Vason argues that his sentence should be reduced based on Guidelines 

Amendment 794, which addressed § 3B1.2. See USSG Suppl. to App. C, Amend. 

794 (2015). However, Amendment 794 is not among the guideline amendments

listed in § 1B1.10(d). Therefore, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) does not allow Vason to 

be resentenced based on the change to Guidelines § 3B1.2 after his sentence was 

imposed.

1

 See United States v. Armstrong, 347 F.3d 905, 907–08 (11th Cir. 2003).

AFFIRMED.

 

1 Vason also attacks his conviction for the first time on appeal based on the Supreme 

Court’s opinion in Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 1240 (2014). However, 

a court cannot review a conviction on a motion to reduce sentence under § 3582(c)(2). Cf.

United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 782 (11th Cir. 2000) (“Section 3582(c) . . . does not grant 

to the court jurisdiction to consider extraneous resentencing issues. [The Appellant] must instead 

bring . . . a collateral attack on his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.”).

Case: 17-11378 Date Filed: 09/26/2017 Page: 3 of 3