USA v. Rodney Graham

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-16234
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:11-cr-60225-DTKH-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RODNEY GRAHAM,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(June 29, 2017)
Before MARTIN, ANDERSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 16-16234 Date Filed: 06/29/2017 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Rodney Graham, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction. On appeal, Graham
argues that he is eligible for a sentence reduction because the district court varied
downward below the career-offender range, and thus, his sentence was based on
§ 2D1.1 of the Guidelines rather than the career-offender designation. As a result,
Graham asserts, when Amendment 782 lowered the ranges in § 2D1.1, he became
entitled to a sentence reduction. Graham also contends Freeman v. United States,
564 U.S. 522 (2011) permits the district court to reduce his sentence. After
review,1 we affirm.
As Graham accurately observes, Amendment 782 reduced by two levels the
base offense levels that apply to most drug offenses in § 2D1.1. See U.S.S.G. app.
C, amend. 782. According to § 3582(c)(2), a district court may reduce a
defendant’s term of imprisonment if the defendant’s sentence was based upon a
Guideline range that the Sentencing Commission subsequently lowered. However,
as the district court recognized, Graham’s Guidelines range would not have been
lowered by Amendment 782 because his sentence was determined based on his
career-offender status, which the Amendment did not change. We have precedent
directly on point that supports the district court’s conclusion. United States v.
1 We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions regarding the scope of its
authority under § 3582(c)(2) and for clear error the factual findings underlying those legal
conclusions. United States v. Davis, 587 F.3d 1300, 1303 (11th Cir. 2009).
Case: 16-16234 Date Filed: 06/29/2017 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1327 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding that where an amendment to
the Guidelines reduced the defendant’s base offense level but the defendant’s total
offense level was unchanged before and after the amendment as a result of the
career-offender Guideline, § 3582(c)(2) relief was unavailable). And contrary to
Graham’s suggestion, that precedent remains intact after Freeman. United States
v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir. 2012) (“Moore remains binding
precedent because it has not been overruled.”). Accordingly, Graham is not
entitled to relief pursuant to § 3582(c)(2).
AFFIRMED.
Case: 16-16234 Date Filed: 06/29/2017 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --