
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John C. PATTERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-13336.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    June 18, 2013.
    Vincent A. Citro, Roger Bernard Hand-berg, III, Katherine M. Ho, J. Bishop Ra-venel, Peggy Morris Ronca, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Orlando, FL, Susan Hollis Rothstein-Youakim, Michelle Thresher Taylor, Robert E. O’Neill, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Rosemary Cakmis, Meghan Ann Collins, Donna Lee Elm, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Orlando, FL, Rick Carey, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Ocala, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, JORDAN and COX, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

John C. Patterson challenges on appeal the district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Specifically, he argues that although he qualified as a career offender, he was not sentenced as a career offender, and thus he is eligible for a sentencing reduction under Amendment 750 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. We find his argument unpersuasive because the application of Amendment 750 would not lower his sentencing range.

Patterson also contends that Freeman v. United States, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2685, 180 L.Ed.2d 519 (2011), abrogated our decision in United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir.2008). As Patterson concedes, however, this argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 568, 184 L.Ed.2d 371 (2012).

AFFIRMED.  