ORDER

JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.

Presently before the court is pro se defendant Diane Tedesco's motion to appeal sentencing protocol procedure. (Doc. # 30). The government filed a response (doc. # 31), and defendant filed a reply. (Doc. # 32).

Simultaneous with the filing of the instant motion, the defendant also filed a motion for a sentence reduction. (Doc. # 29). On November 4, 2015, this court issued an order denying defendant's motion because she was not eligible for a further reduction in her sentence. (Doc. # 33).

The instant motion asks this court to consider defendant's previously-filed motion for a sentence reduction. (Doc. # 29). The government responded that the defendant is not eligible for a further reduction due to the fact that she was previously sentenced below the guideline range. (Doc. # 31). The court notes that in defendant's reply, she asserts that the sentencing guidelines recommended a range of 100-125 months based upon a criminal history category of IV and a total offense level of 27. (Doc. # 32 at 1). However, defendant misunderstands the calculation of her sentence. The defendant was sentenced based upon a criminal history category of VI and a total offense level of 27, making the guideline range 130-162 months. (Doc. # 26 at 4-5). The court then granted a downward departure of two levels, sentencing the defendant to a total of 110 months, a sentence that is below the guideline range for her criminal conduct. (Id. at 15, 22). Because defendant was sentenced below the guideline range, she is not eligible for any further reductions in her sentence. As the court has already ruled on this matter in defendant's previous motion, defendant's instant motion to appeal sentencing protocol procedure is denied as moot. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the defendant's motion to appeal sentencing protocol procedure (doc. # 30) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED as MOOT.