MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

KRISTIK. DuBOSE, District Judge.

This matter is before the court on Defendant Jeremy Knight's timely response to the Court's preliminary determination that Defendant is not eligible for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 750 because his sentence was based on the career offender guideline rather than on a sentencing range that has been subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission. (Doc. 189).

In its January 4, 2012 order directing Defendant to show cause as to why his motion for a sentence reduction should not be denied, the Court observed that the notes to Section 1B1.10 of the Sentencing Guidelines state that courts may not reduce a defendant's sentence where, because of the operation of another guideline (e.g., U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, the career offender guideline), application of a retroactive amendment to the Guidelines does not have the effect of lowering the defendant's guideline range. See Doc. 188 at 2 (quoting U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1 (2011)). Defendant has responded that § 3582(c)(2) relief should remain available to a career offender if, 1) at the initial sentencing, the court downwardly departed from a career offender guideline sentencing range to a range affected by the retroactive amendment or 2) at the initial sentencing, the court, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3, downwardly departed from the career offender guideline because the defendant's criminal history category substantially overrepresented the seriousness of defendant's criminal history or the likelihood of recidivism. (Doc. 189 at 2-4).

The circumstances in Defendant's case differ significantly from the scenarios presented in Defendant's response. In this case, the Court neither departed from the career offender guideline to a guideline range affected by Amendment 750 nor granted a § 4A1.3 departure based on overrepresentation of criminal history. Rather, Defendant's departure was based on his provision of substantial assistance to authorities. (Doc. 145; Doc. 187 at 25-29). The Eleventh Circuit has held that substantial assistance departures do not affect a career offender's ineligibility for a sentence reduction. See United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2008).

Accordingly, Defendant's motion for a sentence reduction (Doc. 186) is due to be DENIED by separate order.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Memorandum to Defendant by U.S. Mail.

DONE and ORDERED.