Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony RUTHERFORD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-06-05
Citations: 471 F. App'x 857
Docket Number: No. 11-16139
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony RUTHERFORD, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 471
Pages: 857–858

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony RUTHERFORD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-16139
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
June 5, 2012.
Wifredo A. Ferrer, Lois A. Foster-Steers, Jonathan Loo, Eric E. Morales, Anne Ruth Schultz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Anthony Rutherford, Coleman, FL, pro se.
Before HULL, WILSON and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Rutherford, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, challenges the district court's denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to modify his term of imprisonment based on Amendment 750 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Amendment 750 lowered the crack cocaine base offense levels in § 2D1.1. The Amendment became retroactive on November 1, 2011. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(c) (2011). Because Rutherford was sentenced for committing offenses involving crack cocaine, he argues that he should be resentenced so that he may benefit from Amendment 750. After review, we affirm the district court.
In 1995, a jury convicted Rutherford of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count 1); possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Count 2); and distribution of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Count 3). Because he had at least two prior felony controlled-substance convictions, Rutherford was sentenced under the career offender guideline § 4B1.1.
A district court is not authorized to grant a sentence reduction pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) "where a retroactively applicable guideline amendment reduces a defendant's base offense level, but does not alter the sentencing range upon which his or her sentence was based...." United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir.2008).
The district court did not have authority to reduce Rutherford's sentence because Amendment 750 did not alter the sentencing range for career offenders. Amendment 750 only changed the base offense levels in § 2D1.1. Although Amendment 750 would have reduced Rutherford's adjusted offense level under § 2D1.1 by six levels, the district court sentenced him as a career offender, pursuant to § 4B1.1. Accordingly, the changes enacted in Amendment 750 have no effect on Rutherford's applicable sentencing range, and he cannot obtain relief from a motion filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
AFFIRMED.