UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Earl NETTLES, Defendant-Appellant, 329 F. App'x 257

PER CURIAM: Robert Earl Nettles, a federal prisoner convicted of a crack cocaine offense, appeals the district court’s denial of his pro se 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of his sentence. After review, we affirm. Under § 3582(c)(2), a district court may modify an already incarcerated defendant’s term of imprisonment if the defendant’s sentence was “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(o).” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1).

However, “[wjhere 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, § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a reduction in sentence.” United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir.2008), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 965, 173 L.Ed.2d 156 (2009), and — U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 1601, 173 L.Ed.2d 689 (2009); see also U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a)(2)(B).

A reduction is not authorized if the amendment does not lower a defendant’s applicable guidelines range “because of the operation of another guideline or statutory provision.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n. 1(A). The district court did not err in denying Nettles a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction. Nettles’s § 3582(c)(2) motion was based on Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which reduced most of the base offense levels in U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(

c) applicable to crack cocaine offenses. See U.S.S.G.App. C, amends. 706, 713. Nettles concedes that he was sentenced as a career offender. Thus, Nettles’s offense level was based on U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, not on U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(c). This Court concluded in United States v. Moore that a crack cocaine defendant, like Nettles, who was sentenced as a career offender under § 4B1.1 is not eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction based on Amendment 706. See 541 F.3d at 1327-29. Thus, the district court did not have authority to reduce Nettles’s sentence under § 3582(c)(2). AFFIRMED. .

In a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding, we review de novo the district court's legal conclusions regarding the scope of its authority under the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1326 (11th Cir.2008).