Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Billy CLEVELAND, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-06-15
Citations: 608 F. App'x 889
Docket Number: No. 14-15296
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Billy CLEVELAND, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before'WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 608
Pages: 889–889

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Billy CLEVELAND, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-15296
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
June 15, 2015.
Wifredo A. Ferrer, Jeanne Marie Mul-lenhoff, Kathleen Mary Salyer, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, Lynn D. Ro-senthal, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Billy Cleveland, Coleman, FL, pro se.
Before'WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Billy Cleveland appeals pro se the denial of his motion for a sentence reduction. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Cleveland based his motion on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.
The district court did not err when it denied Cleveland's motion for a reduction of his sentence. Cleveland, whose sentence is based on the career offender guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, not on the drug quantity tables, id. § 2D1.1, is ineligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782. See United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir.2012); United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1327-30 (11th Cir.2008). Cleveland challenges his classification as a career offender, but that challenge is outside the limited scope of section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780-81 (11th Cir.2000).
We AFFIRM the denial of Cleveland's motion to reduce.