Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Anthony PHILLIPS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-22
Citations: 383 F. App'x 931
Docket Number: No. 10-10085
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Anthony PHILLIPS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MARCUS, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 383
Pages: 931–931

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Anthony PHILLIPS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-10085
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
June 22, 2010.
Anne Schultz, Assistant U.S. Attorney, United States Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, Jeffrey Sloman, U.S. Attorney, West Palm Beach, FL, Robin Waugh-Farretta, United States Attorney’s Office, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael Anthony Phillips, Miami, FL, pro se.
Before MARCUS, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michael Phillips appeals pro se the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Phillips's motion was based on Amendment 706 to the Guidelines. We affirm.
The district court did not err by denying Phillips's motion. Phillips is not eligible for a reduction of sentence because he is a career offender. United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir.2008). Phillips challenges his classification as a career offender, but in determining eligibility for a reduction of sentence, "all original sentencing determinations remain unchanged." United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 781 (11th Cir.2000). Amendment 706 did not have the effect of lowering Phillips's sentencing range. Moore, 541 F.3d at 1327-28.
The denial of Phillips's motion for a reduced sentence is AFFIRMED.