Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory MCKINNIES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-27
Citations: 339 F. App'x 908
Docket Number: No. 08-16401
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory MCKINNIES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 339
Pages: 908–910

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory MCKINNIES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-16401
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
July 27, 2009.
Peggy Morris Ronca, Orlando, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gregory McKinnies, Bennettsville, SC, pro se.
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Gregory McKinnies appeals, pro se, the district court's denial of his motion for a reduction of sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). McKinnies's § 3582(c)(2) motion was based on Amendment 706 to the Guidelines, which reduced base offense levels applicable to crack cocaine. On appeal, McKinnies argues that he was entitled to a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) because Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines reduced his base offense level and therefore changed his applicable guideline range. McKinnies also contends that the district court's drug quantity finding at his original sentencing was ambiguous, and that his case should be remanded for further proceedings. He further argues that the district court: (1) incorrectly determined that he was a career offender; and (2) failed to consider the § 3553(a) factors, as well as the crack/cocaine powder sentencing disparity and the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738,160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).
"We review de novo a district court's conclusions about the scope of its legal authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)." United States v. James, 548 F.3d 983, 984 (11th Cir.2008). A district court may not modify a term of imprisonment unless a defendant was sentenced based on a sentencing range that has "subsequently been lowered" by the Sentencing Commission. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B), (c)(2). During a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding, the district court may only calculate the defendant's amended guideline range, and it may not disturb any of its original factual findings. United States v. Cothran, 106 F.3d 1560, 1561-63 (11th Cir.1997). Indeed, "all original sentencing determinations remain unchanged with the sole exception of the guideline range that has been amended since the original sentencing." United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 781 (11th Cir.2000) (emphasis in the original).
Amendment 706, which has been made retroactive, amends the Drug Quantity Table in U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(c) "to provide a two-level reduction in base offense levels for crack cocaine offenses." United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1325 (11th Cir.2008), cert. denied, McFadden v. United States, - U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 965, 173 L.Ed.2d 156 (2009), and cert. denied, — U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 1601, 173 L.Ed.2d 689 (2009). However, if a defendant is a career offender, his base offense level is determined under the career-offender guideline in U.S.S.G. § 4Bl.l(b) and not the drug-quantity guideline in § 2Dl.l(c). Moore, 541 F.3d at 1327-28.
McKinnies's arguments are foreclosed by precedent. We recently held that defendants who are sentenced under the career-offender guideline are not sentenced under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, and are, therefore, ineligible for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 706. See Moore, 541 F.3d at 1327-28. McKin-nies' remaining arguments are likewise barred by precedent. See United States v. Jones, 548 F.3d 1366, 1369 (11th Cir.2008) (holding that Booker does not, by itself, permit a district court to impose a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction); Cothran, 106 F.3d at 1561-63 (barring the district court from re-examining factual findings made during the original sentencing proceedings). Accordingly, we hereby affirm the district court's decision.
AFFIRMED.
. McKinnies's motion to file his reply brief out of time is GRANTED.