United States v. Ruby Lee Saunders , 323 F. App'x 829 ( 2009 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APRIL 21, 2009
No. 08-15048 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-00142-CR-T-30MSS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RUBY LEE SAUNDERS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(April 21, 2009)
Before MARCUS, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Ruby Lee Saunders appeals the denial of her motion to reduce her sentence.
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Saunders moved to reduce her sentence based on
Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which reduced base offense levels
applicable to crack cocaine. We affirm.
“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) (per curiam). A district court may modify a sentence for
a defendant who was sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing
range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Any reduction must be “consistent with applicable policy
statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” Id. A sentence modification is
not consistent with the policy statements when an amendment “does not have the
effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range.” U.S.S.G. §
1B1.10(2)(B).
Saunders’s argument is foreclosed by precedent. In United States v. Moore,
we held that, when a defendant’s base offense level is calculated under the career
offender provision, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, Amendment 706 does not lower the
defendant’s guideline range and the defendant is ineligible for a sentence
modification under section 3582(c)(2). 541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir. 2008).
Saunders was sentenced as a career offender. We affirm the denial of Saunders’s
2
motion to reduce her sentence.
AFFIRMED.
3