Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodney GRAHAM, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-29
Citations: 691 F. App'x 601
Docket Number: No. 16-16234 Non-Argument Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodney GRAHAM, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MARTIN, ANDERSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 691
Pages: 601–602

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodney GRAHAM, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-16234 Non-Argument Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
(June 29, 2017)
Laura Thomas Rivero, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Andrea G. Hoffman, Emily M. Sma-chetti, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, Terry Lamar Lindsey, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Rodney Graham, Pro Se
Before MARTIN, ANDERSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Rodney Graham, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction. On appeal, Graham argues that he is eligible for a sentence reduction because the district court varied downward below the career-offender range, and thus, his sentence was based on § 2D1.1 of the Guidelines rather than the career-offender designation. As a result, Graham asserts, when Amendment 782 lowered the ranges in § 2D1.1, he became entitled to a sentence reduction. Graham also contends Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522, 131 S.Ct. 2685, 180 L.Ed.2d 519 (2011) permits the district court to reduce his sentence. After review, we affirm.
As Graham accurately observes, Amendment 782 reduced by two levels the base offense levels that apply to niost drug offenses in § 2D1.1. See U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 782. According to § 3582(c)(2), a district court may reduce a defendant's term of imprisonment if the defendant's sentence was based upon a Guideline range that the Sentencing Commission subsequently lowered. However, as the district court recognized, Graham's Guide lines range would not have been lowered by Amendment 782 because his sentence was determined based on his career-offender status, which the Amendment did not change. We have precedent directly on point that supports the district court's conclusion. United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1327 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding that where an amendment to the Guidelines reduced the defendant's base offense level but the defendant's total offense level was unchanged before and after the amendment as a result of the career-offender Guideline, § 3582(c)(2) relief was unavailable). And contrary to Graham's suggestion, that precedent remains intact after Freeman. United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir. 2012) {"Moore remains binding precedent because it has not been overruled."). Accordingly, Graham is not entitled to relief pursuant to § 3582(c)(2).
AFFIRMED.
. We review de novo the district court's legal conclusions regarding the scope of its authority under § 3582(c)(2) and for clear error the factual findings underlying those legal conclusions. United States v. Davis, 587 F.3d 1300, 1303 (11th Cir. 2009).