Case: 15-11977    Date Filed: 09/21/2015   Page: 1 of 5


                                                          [DO NOT PUBLISH]



             IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                     FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                       ________________________

                             No. 15-11977
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                       ________________________

                  D.C. Docket No. 1:07-cr-20799-MGC-1



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                               Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                    versus

DUGGAN L. HIGGINBOTTOM,

                                                           Defendant-Appellant.

                       ________________________

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

                             (September 21, 2015)

Before HULL, JULIE CARNES and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
                Case: 15-11977        Date Filed: 09/21/2015       Page: 2 of 5


       Duggan Higginbottom, a federal prisoner convicted of drug and firearm

offenses, appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his pro se 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 782 of the

Sentencing Guidelines. After review, we affirm. 1

       A district court may reduce a defendant’s prison term if the defendant was

sentenced based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been 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).

The applicable policy statements, found in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, provide that a

sentence reduction is not authorized under § 3582(c)(2) when the retroactive

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

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

       Thus, a sentence reduction is not authorized by an amendment that changes

one guideline if the defendant’s sentence was based on a different guideline. See

United States v. Berry, 

, 376-77 (11th Cir. 2012) (concluding that no

§ 3582(c)(2) reduction was authorized by Amendment 750, which lowered offense

levels in § 2D1.1(c), the Drug Quantity Table, because the defendant’s offense

level and resulting sentencing range were based on § 4B1.1, the career offender

guideline). Moreover, a sentence reduction is not authorized where a defendant’s

       1
        “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. Jones, 

, 1368 (11th Cir. 2008).
                                                    2
              Case: 15-11977     Date Filed: 09/21/2015   Page: 3 of 5


guidelines range and sentence are based on a statutory mandatory minimum. See

United States v. Mills, 

, 1077-78 (11th Cir. 2010); see also U.S.S.G.

§ 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A).

      Here, the district court did not err in denying Higginbottom’s § 3582(c)(2)

motion based on Amendment 782. Amendment 782, like Amendment 750 before

it, lowered the base offense level for many drug offenses by revising the Drug

Quantity Table in § 2D1.1(c). See U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 782; see also U.S.S.G.

§ 1B1.10(d) (including Amendment 782 in the list of amendments that may serve

as the basis for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction). The problem for Higginbottom is that

the sentencing court did not use § 2D1.1(c) to calculate Higginbottom’s advisory

guidelines range.

      Higginbottom was convicted of both drug and firearm offenses.

Specifically, a jury convicted Higginbottom of unlawfully possessing a firearm and

ammunition as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Count 1);

knowingly possessing marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 2 and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(D) (Count 2); and knowingly using and

carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c)(1)(A) (Count 3).

      At sentencing, Counts 1 and 2 were grouped together for purposes of

calculating an advisory guidelines range. See U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(c). For Counts 1


                                             3
              Case: 15-11977    Date Filed: 09/21/2015   Page: 4 of 5


and 2, the sentencing court used § 2K2.1, the guideline applicable to firearm

offenses, rather than § 2D1.1(c), to calculate Higginbottom’s offense level because

§ 2K2.1 resulted in a higher offense level. See U.S.S.G. § 3D1.3(a) (providing that

the offense level for counts grouped together under § 3D1.2(c) is the highest

offense level of the counts in the group). With an adjusted offense level of 28 and

a criminal history of VI, the advisory guidelines range for Counts 1 and 2 was 140

to 175. The sentence for Count 3 was imposed separately because it required a

statutory mandatory minimum 60-month consecutive sentence. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i). Ultimately, the district court imposed a total 200-month

sentence.

      In short, Higginbottom’s sentencing range for Counts 1 and 2 was based on

§ 2K2.1 and his sentencing range for Count 3 was based on § 924(c). Thus,

Amendment 782, which changed only the offense levels in § 2D1.1(c), had no

effect on Higginbottom’s sentencing range for any of his counts of conviction.

The district court therefore did not have the authority to reduce Higginbottom’s

sentence under § 3582(c)(2). See 

; 

.

      To the extent Higginbottom challenges his original sentence, including

arguing that it violated United States v. Booker, 

, 

(2005), these are not issues he can raise in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See 18


                                            4
              Case: 15-11977     Date Filed: 09/21/2015   Page: 5 of 5


U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (limiting proceedings to cases in which a retroactive guideline

amendment affects the applicable sentencing range); United States v. Bravo, 

, 780 (11th Cir. 2000) (explaining that all original sentencing

determinations other than the effect of the amended guideline provision remain

unchanged in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding).

      Accordingly, because Higginbottom was not eligible for § 3582(c)(2) relief

based on Amendment 782, the district court properly denied his § 3582(c)(2)

motion.

      AFFIRMED.




                                             5