UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnnie E. MOSLEY, Defendant-Appellant, 468 F. App'x 632

ORDER Johnnie Mosley appeals from the denial of his motion for a reduced sentence based on a retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines, see 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Because the amendment does not apply to Mosley, we affirm the judgment. Mosley pleaded guilty in 2006 to being a felon in possession of a firearm, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and possession of crack cocaine with intent to deliver, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He was sentenced as a career offender, see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, to 262 months’ imprisonment.

The Sentencing Commission later retroactively amended U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 to lower the base offense levels for certain crack offenses, see U.S.S.G. app. C at 253 (2011) (Amend. 713), and Mosley moved under § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Mosley’s status as a career offender made him ineligible for a sentence reduction. On appeal Mosley argues broadly that the Sentencing Commission should have extended the reach of its amendment to include those sentenced under the career-offender guideline.

He also argues that the district court should have considered his post-sentencing rehabilitation before denying his motion. But whatever the merits of Mosley’s arguments as a policy matter, the district court lacked authority to reduce his sentence because it had sentenced him based on his status as a career offender and not § 2D1.1. See United States v. Guyton, 636 F.3d 316, 318 (7th Cir.2011); United States v. Jackson, 573 F.3d 398, 399-400 (7th Cir.2009); United States v. Forman, 553 F.3d 585, 589-90 (7th Cir.2009). AFFIRMED.