Case: 13-10817     Date Filed: 08/16/2013   Page: 1 of 4


                                                              [DO NOT PUBLISH]

                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                         FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                           ________________________

                                 No. 13-10817
                             Non-Argument Calendar
                           ________________________

                      D.C. Docket No. 5:96-CR-00023-CAR-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                    Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                        versus

EDLENCO SHANDAR BILLUPS,

                                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                          __________________________

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Middle District of Georgia
                          _________________________
                                 (August 16, 2013)

Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

      Edlenco Shandar Billups appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for

a reduction of sentence, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). After review of

the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm.
                Case: 13-10817      Date Filed: 08/16/2013      Page: 2 of 4


       On January 21, 1997, Mr. Billups pled guilty to conspiracy to possess

cocaine base with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & 846.

The pre-sentence investigation report indicated that Mr. Billup’s total offense level

was 31 based upon the quantity of cocaine base (between 50-150 grams) as well as

a two-level enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon and adjustments

for accepting responsibility and assisting authorities by providing timely and

complete information. Mr. Billups, however, qualified as a career offender under

U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, which subjected him to an enhanced total offense level of 341

and a sentencing guideline range of 262 to 327 months’ imprisonment. The district

court sentenced Mr. Billups as a career offender to 300 months’ imprisonment.

       On November 1, 2011, Mr. Billups filed a § 3582(c)(2) motion for a

sentence reduction based on Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The

district court denied Mr. Billups’ motion because “a defendant whose original

sentence was based on the Career Offender Guideline . . . cannot receive a sentence

reduction pursuant to a Guideline amendment like Amendment 750.” D.E. 95 at 2.

This appeal followed.

       “In a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding, ‘we review de novo the district court's legal

conclusions regarding the scope of its authority under the Sentencing Guidelines.’”


       1
         Based on the career offender designation, Mr. Billups’ base offense level increased to
37, but his three-level adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 for the acceptance of responsibility
and assisting authorities with timely and complete information still applied.
                                              2
              Case: 13-10817    Date Filed: 08/16/2013   Page: 3 of 4


United States v. Moore, 

, 1326 (11th Cir. 2008). Under § 3528(c)(2),

a district court may reduce the terms of a defendant’s imprisonment if the sentence

was based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the

Sentencing Commission. If, however, “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.” 

.

      In this case, Mr. Billups was not eligible for a reduced sentence because he

was sentenced as a career offender under § 4B1.1. His sentencing guideline range

remained unchanged because § 4B1.1 was not affected by Amendment 750. See 

that defendants sentenced as career offenders under § 4B1.1 are

not entitled to sentence reductions based on an amendment to the base offense

levels for crack cocaine offenses in § 2D1.1); United States v. Lawson, 

, 1319 (11th Cir. 2012) (holding that Moore remains binding precedent and

applies to Amendment 750).

      Mr. Billups argues that he is nevertheless entitled to a sentence reduction

based on the Third Circuit’s reasoning in United States v. Flemming, 

(3d Cir. 2010). In Flemming, the Third Circuit decided “[t]he narrow issue” of

“whether a career offender who receives a § 4A1.3 downward departure . . . to the

Guidelines range for crack cocaine offenses is eligible for a sentence reduction


                                        3
              Case: 13-10817     Date Filed: 08/16/2013   Page: 4 of 4


under §3582(c)(2).” 

is not the issue in this case. First, Mr. Billups

did not receive a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b); he received an

adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 for acceptance of responsibility and assisting

authorities with timely and complete information. Second, he was not sentenced

within the guideline range applicable to his crack cocaine offense. Mr. Billups

received a sentence of 300 months’ imprisonment, and the guideline range for his

crack cocaine offense—based on a total offense level of 31 and a criminal history

category of V—was 168-210 months. See PSI at ¶ 82. These are critical

distinctions and, therefore, Flemming does not help Mr. Billups. Accord 

(distinguishing its facts from other decisions where downward

departures were given pursuant to § 4A1.3).

      In sum, the district court correctly denied Mr. Billup’s § 3582(c)(2) motion.

      AFFIRMED.




                                          4