Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George BURNS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-08
Citations: 336 F. App'x 900
Docket Number: No. 09-10700
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George BURNS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 336
Pages: 900–900

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George BURNS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10700
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
July 8, 2009.
Before TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
George Burns appeals the denial of his motion for a reduced sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Burns's motion was based on Amendment 706 to the Guidelines. We affirm.
Burns argues that the district court was entitled to reduce his sentence because the ba'se offense level for his underlying crack cocaine offenses has been altered by Amendment 706, but Burns acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir.2008). Burns was sentenced as a career offender. Burns argues that the district court had discretion to reduce his sentence below the amended range under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007), but those decisions do not apply to a motion to reduce a sentence. See United States v. Melvin, 556 F.3d 1190, 1191-93 (11th Cir.2009). The district court did not err by denying Burns's motion.
The denial of Burns's motion for a reduced sentence is AFFIRMED.