United States of America v. Edward Calloway

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 10a0748n.06
No. 09-4351
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
EDWARD CALLOWAY,
Defendant-Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
OHIO
Before: MARTIN, GIBBONS, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.
KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. In July 2000, Edward Calloway pled guilty to possession of
cocaine base with intent to distribute. See 21 U.S.C. § 841. The sentencing court determined that
Calloway was a career offender under U.S. Sentencing Guideline § 4B1.1. After a three-level
reduction for accepting responsibility, the recommended range for Calloway’s sentence was 151 to
188 months. The court sentenced Calloway to 151 months’ imprisonment.
The Sentencing Commission thereafter retroactively amended the sentencing Guidelines for
crack cocaine. Calloway moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence. Section
3582(c)(2) says a defendant may seek a reduction if he was sentenced “based on a sentencing range”
retroactively lowered by the Commission. The district court denied his motion, holding that
Calloway was ineligible for a reduction because he was sentenced based on the career-offender

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 09-4351
U.S. v. Calloway
-2-
range, which has not been lowered. We review that determination de novo. See United States v.
Johnson, 569 F.3d 619, 623 (6th Cir. 2009).
On appeal, Calloway argues that the sentencing court must have based his sentence in part
on the crack-possession range, because the career-offender range is advisory under United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Calloway also argues that he was not sentenced based on the career-
offender range because he received a reduction for accepting responsibility.
Calloway concedes that we rejected these same arguments in United States v. Perdue, 572
F.3d 288 (6th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1537 (2010). We are bound by that decision, and
thus reject his arguments.
The district court’s order denying Calloway’s motion is affirmed.

-- 2 of 2 --