Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Ched REED, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-22
Citations: 338 F. App'x 851
Docket Number: No. 08-13585
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Ched REED, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BARKETT, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 338
Pages: 851–852

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Ched REED, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-13585
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
July 22, 2009.
Jacqueline A. Simms-Petredis, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Donna Lee Elm, Federal Public, Defender, Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
David Paul Rhodes, A. Brian Albritton, United States Attorney’s Office, Yvette Rhodes, W. Stephen Muldrow, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before BARKETT, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michael Ched Reed appeals the district court's denial of his motion for a reduction of sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Reed's § 3582(c)(2) motion was based on Amendment 706 to the Guidelines, which reduced base offense levels applicable to crack cocaine. On ap peal, Reed argues that he was not sentenced as a career offender because the district court found that Reed's career offender criminal history category of VI overrepresented his prior criminal conduct, and, therefore, it departed downward, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3, to a criminal history category of IV. Reed attempts to distinguish our decision in United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323 (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), by arguing that none of the career offender defendants in Moore had received a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3.
"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). Amendment 706, which has been made retroactive, amends the Drug Quantity Table in U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(e) "to provide a two-level reduction in base offense levels for crack cocaine offenses." Moore, 541 F.3d at 1325. However, if a defendant is a career offender, his base offense level is determined under the career offender guideline in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b) and not the drug quantity guideline in § 2D1.1(c).
Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we discern no reversible error. A defendant is only entitled to a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction if an amendment actually reduces his applicable guideline range. See Moore, 541 F.3d at 1327-28. In this case, Amendment 706 did not reduce Reed's applicable guideline range because his final offense level was based on the career offender provisions of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 and not the § 2D1.1 table that Amendment 706 changed. Therefore, because Reed's applicable guideline range remained unaffected by Amendment 706, he was not entitled to a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). Accordingly, we hereby affirm the district court's decision.
AFFIRMED.