OPINION AND ORDER

ANNA J. BROWN, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion (#77) to Reduce Sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) based on the November 1, 2011, amendments to the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) or, in the alternative, for reconsideration of the Court's 2008 Order (#25) denying in part Defendant's previously-filed Motion to Reduce Sentence under the 2008 crack cocaine sentencing amendments.

The government argues Defendant is ineligible for a sentence reduction because Defendant's initial advisory sentencing guideline range was properly calculated by applying U.S.S.G. 4B1.1 based on his status as a career offender, and Defendant was, therefore, ineligible for a reduction in sentence. United States v. Pleasant, No. 12-10213, ____ WL 11892, at *3-4 (Jan. 2, —) ("§ 1B1.10 mandates that the Career Offender guidelines [are the] `applicable guidelines'; thus, the district court did not have jurisdiction either to hear [the defendant's] § 3582(c) motion or to act sua sponte.").

The government also argues Defendant's reliance on United States v. Jackson, 678 F.3d 442 (6th Cir. 2012), is misplaced because that case did not involve a reduction of sentence under § 3582(c) but was instead a direct appeal from sentencing.

The Court agrees with the government that, in accordance with the Ninth Circuit's recent holding in Pleasant, advisory sentencing guidelines based on Defendant's status as a career offender were applied correctly to the sentence imposed on Defendant and, therefore, Defendant is not entitled to a reduction in sentence under § 3582(c).

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion (#77) to Reduce Sentence.

IT IS SO ORDERED.