USA v. Michael Deshawn Anderson

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-12483
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 7:07-cr-00510-RDP-TMP-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL DESHAWN ANDERSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(December 2, 2015)
Before JORDAN, JULIE CARNES and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-12483 Date Filed: 12/02/2015 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Michael Deshawn Anderson, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals
the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) motion for a reduced
sentence based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. After review,1
we affirm.
The sentencing court explicitly determined that Anderson was a career
offender under the Sentencing Guidelines. Therefore, Anderson’s offense level
remains unchanged even after the application of Amendment 782. Because
Amendment 782 did not have the effect of lowering Anderson’s guideline range,
no reduction in sentence is authorized. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10(a)(2)(B), p.s.; Moore, 541 F.3d at 1330 (holding that where a defendant
has been sentenced as a career offender and the offense level in the drug quantity
table did not play a role in the calculation of the guideline range, no reduction is
authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)).
The sentencing court denied Anderson’s motion for a downward departure
but chose to vary Anderson’s sentence below the guideline range after considering
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. There is no indication that the
sentencing court considered the drug quantity table when it varied Anderson’s
sentence. C.f. Moore, 541 F.3d at 1330 (Where there is no “indication that the
1 “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.” United States v. Moore,
541 F.3d 1323, 1326 (11th Cir. 2008) (quotation omitted).
Case: 15-12483 Date Filed: 12/02/2015 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
court based [the defendant’s] sentence on the guideline range that would have
applied absent the career offender designation… there is no basis for concluding
that the reduction of [the defendant’s] base offense level lowered the sentencing
range relied upon by the district court in determining his sentence.”).
AFFIRMED.
Case: 15-12483 Date Filed: 12/02/2015 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --