Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerald SMITH, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-09
Citations: 516 F. App'x 769
Docket Number: No. 12-12325
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerald SMITH, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 516
Pages: 769–770

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerald SMITH, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-12325
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
April 9, 2013.
Ramona Albin, Michael B. Billingsley, Alice H. Martin, Joseph Paul Montminy, William G. Simpson, Jenny Lynn Smith, Joyce White Vance, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Birmingham, AL,
Gerald Smith, Jr., Lisbon, OH, pro se.
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
On January 7, 2007, Gerald Smith, having pled guilty to distribution of five grams or more of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), was sentenced to a prison term of 235 months. In November 2008, Smith moved the District Court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines relating to crack cocaine, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 The court denied his motion because the Guidelines sentence range, pursuant to which he had been sentenced, was not changed by the application of Amendment 706. That is, because he had previously been convicted of at least two controlled substance offenses, he had been sentenced pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4Bl.l(b)(B), as a career offender, rather than § 2D1.1.
In January 2012, Smith filed a second § 3582(c)(2) motion for the reduction of his sentence based on Amendment 750 to the Guidelines, what Smith labeled the "permanent amendment" to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. The court denied his motion, and he appeals.
We affirm the District Court's ruling on the ground that Amendment 750 does not apply in this case. As noted above, Smith's sentence was imposed pursuant to the career offender guideline, § 4Bl.l(b)(B), not § 2D1.1. Accordingly, Amendment 750's lowering of the § 2D1.1 base offense level "would not lower the sentencing range upon which [Smith's] sentence was based." United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1327 (11th Cir.2008) (affirming the denial of § 3582(c)(2) relief based on Amendment 706 where defendant was sentenced as a career offender).
AFFIRMED.