Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward CALLOWAY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-12-01
Citations: 404 F. App'x 946
Docket Number: No. 09-4351
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward CALLOWAY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MARTIN, GIBBONS, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 404
Pages: 946–946

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward CALLOWAY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-4351.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Dec. 1, 2010.
Before MARTIN, GIBBONS, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge.
In July 2000, Edward Calloway pled guilty to possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute. See 21 U.S.C. § 841. The sentencing court determined that Calloway was a career offender under U.S. Sentencing Guideline § 4B1.1. After a three-level reduction for accepting responsibility, the recommended range for Calloway's sentence was 151 to 188 months. The court sentenced Calloway to 151 months' imprisonment.
The Sentencing Commission thereafter retroactively amended the sentencing Guidelines for crack cocaine. Calloway moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence. Section 3582(c)(2) says a defendant may seek a reduction if he was sentenced "based on a sentencing range" retroactively lowered by the Commission. The district court denied his motion, holding that Calloway was ineligible for a reduction because he was sentenced based on the career-offender range, which has not been lowered. We review that determination de novo. See United States v. Johnson, 569 F.3d 619, 623 (6th Cir.2009).
On appeal, Calloway argues that the sentencing court must have based his sentence in part on the crack-possession range, because the career-offender range is advisory under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Calloway also argues that he was not sentenced based on the career-offender range because he received a reduction for accepting responsibility.
Calloway concedes that we rejected these same arguments in United States v. Perdue, 572 F.3d 288 (6th Cir.2009), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1537, 176 L.Ed.2d 133 (2010). We are bound by that decision, and thus reject his arguments.
The district court's order denying Calloway's motion is affirmed.