RASHEED J. SEWELL
Unpublishedhttp://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0398n-06.pdfDefendant appealed district court’s denial of his motion to reduce sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Because the career-offender guidelines and not the crack-cocaine guidelines controlled the original sentence, the district court correctly concluded that the defendant was not eligible for a sentence reduction. Court affirmed the denial of the motion.
The defendant’s arguments that his case could be distinguished from Dillon and its 6th Circuit predecessors were rejected.