[DO NOT PUBLISH]


              IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                       FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                         ________________________                   FILED
                                                           U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                                No. 08-14647                 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                                                                 JUNE 3, 2009
                            Non-Argument Calendar
                                                              THOMAS K. KAHN
                          ________________________
                                                                   CLERK

                  D. C. Docket No. 00-00346-CR-T-17-MAP

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


                                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                     versus

CALVIN TUCKER, JR.,
a.k.a. Tuck,

                                                             Defendant-Appellant.


                          ________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                       _________________________

                                  (June 3, 2009)

Before BLACK, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

     Calvin Tucker, Jr., a federal prisoner convicted of crack cocaine offenses,
appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a

sentence reduction. After review, we affirm.1

       Under § 3582(c)(2), a district court may modify an already incarcerated

defendant’s term of imprisonment if the defendant’s sentence was “based on a

sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing

Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(o).” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); see also

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1). However, “[w]here a retroactively applicable guideline

amendment reduces a defendant’s base offense level, but does not alter the

sentencing range upon which his or her sentence was based, § 3582(c)(2) does not

authorize a reduction in sentence.” United States v. Moore, 

, 1330

(11th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 

(2009), and ___ S. Ct. ___, 

(U.S. Mar. 9, 2009) (No. 08-8554); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B).

A reduction is not authorized if the amendment does not lower a defendant’s

applicable guidelines range “because of the operation of another guideline or

statutory provision.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A).

       The district court did not err in denying Tucker’s § 3582(c)(2) motion.

Tucker’s § 3582(c)(2) motion was based on Amendment 706 to the Sentencing

Guidelines, which reduced most of the offense levels in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)


       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. James, 

, 984 (11th Cir. 2008).

                                                2
applicable to crack cocaine offenses. See U.S.S.G. App. C, amends. 706, 713.

Because Tucker was designated a career offender at his original sentencing, his

offense level was based on U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, not on U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). This

Court concluded in United States v. Moore that a crack cocaine defendant, like

Tucker, who was sentenced as a career offender under § 4B1.1 is not eligible for a

§ 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction based on Amendment 706. 

-

29.

         Tucker argues that he falls within an exception recognized in Moore because

he received a downward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b) for over-

represented criminal history. However, Tucker’s § 4A1.3(b) downward departure

was to his criminal history category, not to his offense level. Thus, the possible

exception discussed in Moore would not apply. See 

In light of our

circuit precedent, see United States v. Smith, 

, 710-711 (11th Cir.

2002), Tucker’s other arguments about § 4A1.3(b) horizontal departures in

criminal history, which leave the career-offender offense level untouched, also lack

merit.

         The district court correctly concluded that it did not have authority to reduce

Tucker’s sentence under § 3582(c)(2).

         AFFIRMED.



                                             3