Case: 15-10683   Date Filed: 07/22/2015   Page: 1 of 4


                                                       [DO NOT PUBLISH]



           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                   FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                     ________________________

                           No. 15-10683
                       Non-Argument Calendar
                     ________________________

                D.C. Docket No. 0:09-cr-60304-KMM-1




UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                             Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                 versus

CHARLES THERION CLAYTON,
a.k.a. Charles Clayton,

                                                        Defendant-Appellant.

                     ________________________

              Appeal from the United States District Court
                  for the Southern District of Florida
                    ________________________

                            (July 22, 2015)
              Case: 15-10683    Date Filed: 07/22/2015   Page: 2 of 4


Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JILL PRYOR, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.



PER CURIAM:



      Charles Therion Clayton is a federal prisoner who pleaded guilty to

possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine. He now appeals

pro se the denial of a motion for a sentence reduction, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §

3582(c)(2), based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district

court denied the motion: Clayton’s career-offender status precluded a sentence

reduction. No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.

      We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions about the scope of

its authority in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. United States v. James, 

, 984 (11th Cir. 2008).

      A district court may reduce a defendant’s term of imprisonment if the

defendant was sentenced based on a sentencing range that was later lowered by the

Sentencing Commission and “if such a reduction is consistent with applicable

policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2);

see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1). A reduction of a defendant’s term of

imprisonment is unauthorized under section 3582(c)(2) when the retroactive




                                         2
              Case: 15-10683    Date Filed: 07/22/2015   Page: 3 of 4


guideline amendment “does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s

applicable guideline range.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B).

      The district court committed no error in denying Clayton a sentence

reduction based on Amendment 782. Amendment 782 reduced -- by two -- the

base offense levels for most drug sentences calculated pursuant to the Drug

Quantity Table, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). U.S.S.G. App. C, amend. 782. But Clayton

was sentenced using the offense level and guideline range for career offenders in

U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, and not the offense level for drug quantity in U.S.S.G.

§ 2D1.1(c). Amendment 782 resulted in no lowering of Clayton’s guideline range;

Clayton is ineligible for section 3582(c)(2) relief. See United States v. Lawson,

, 1321 (11th Cir. 2012).

      Clayton’s reliance on Freeman v. United States, 

(2011), is

misplaced. In Freeman, the Supreme Court considered whether defendants who

entered into plea agreements recommending a particular sentence, pursuant to

Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1)(C), were eligible for a sentence reduction under section

3582(c)(2). Here, Clayton’s plea agreement contained no agreed-upon sentence or

guidelines range. Thus, Freeman is inapplicable.

      Because Clayton’s guideline range remained unchanged as a result of

Amendment 782, no ex post facto violation occurred. See United States v. Colon,

, 1258-59 (11th Cir. 2013) (no ex post facto problem exists “[s]o


                                         3
              Case: 15-10683    Date Filed: 07/22/2015   Page: 4 of 4


long as the effect of post-conduct amendments to the guidelines is not to increase a

defendant’s punishment beyond what it would have been without those

amendments.”). And the district court committed no error in treating U.S.S.G. §

1B1.10 as binding. See Dillon v. United States, 

(2010).

      AFFIRMED.




                                         4