Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth L. RIVERS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-08
Citations: 335 F. App'x 5
Docket Number: No. 08-16968
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth L. RIVERS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BARKETT, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 335
Pages: 5–6

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth L. RIVERS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-16968
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
June 8, 2009.
Robert B. Cornell, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Anne R. Schultz, Laura Thomas Rivero, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kenneth L. Rivers, Coleman, FL, pro se.
Before BARKETT, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth L. Rivers, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's denial of his pro se motion for a sentence reduction, which he filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Rivers's motion was based on Amendment 709, which generally affected the calculation of a defendant's criminal history score. On appeal, Rivers argues that the district court erred in denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion because, as a clarifying amendment, Amendment 709 retroactively applied to reduce his guideline range.
"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 mod ify a term of imprisonment in the case of a defendant who was sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that subsequently has been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Any reduction, however, must be "consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission." Id. The applicable policy statements, found in § 1B1.10, state that a sentence reduction is not authorized under § 3582(c)(2) if "none of the amendments listed in subsection (c) is applicable to the defendant...." U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(A). Amendment 709 is not listed in U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(c). See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c).
Here, Rivers was not eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction based on Amendment 709 because Amendment 709 is not a retroactively applicable guideline amendment listed in § lB1.10(c). See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(A); United States v. Armstrong, 347 F.3d 905, 907-08 (11th Cir.2003) (holding that the district court did not err in determining that the defendant's sentence could not be reduced under § 3582(c)(2) when the amendment at issue was not listed in § 1B1.10(c)). To the extent that Rivers argues that Amendment 709 applies retroactively because it is a clarifying amendment, his argument fails because we have held that, while consideration of a clarifying amendment "may be necessary in the direct appeal of a sentence or in a petition under [28 U.S.C.] § 2255, it bears no relevance to determining retroactivity under § 3582(c)(2)." Armstrong, 347 F.3d at 908-09.
AFFIRMED.