[DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 21 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 6- cr-2 06 92 -ASG-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us VINCENT HOWARD, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Aug us t 1 , 20 12 ) Befo re BARKETT, PRYOR an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Vin cen t Ho ward , pro ceed in g pr o s e , app eal s t he di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s Case: 11-15211 Date Filed: 08/01/2012 Page: 1 of 518 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n fo r a s en te nc e reduc ti on ba se d o n re tro act iv e

Am en dm en t 7 50 to th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es . Am en dm en t 7 50 to okeffe cton Nov em be r 1, 2 01 1, an d re pr om

ul ga te d a s p erm an en t the tem po rary em erg en cy Am en dm en t 7 48 , whi ch , am on g o th er thi ng s, l owe redth e b as e o ffen se lev el s fo r pa rti cu la r cra ckco cai ne qu an ti ti es li st edinU.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (c), p ur su an t t o t he Fai r Sen te nc in g Actof 2 01 0, Pub. L. No. 1 11 -2 20 , 12 4 S ta t. 2 37 2. Se eU.S.S.G. App . C, Am en ds . 74 8, 7 50 . For t he reas on s s etforth be lo w, we affi rm . I. In20 07 , Howardwas c on vi ct edby a j ury onon e co un t o f po ss es si onwith in te ntto di st rib ut e fi ve gra m s o r m or e o f cra ckco cai ne (Co un t 1 ), an d o ne co un t of po ss es si on with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te co cai ne (Co un t 2 ), al l i n v io la ti on of 2 1 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) . The p ro ba ti on off ic er co m pi le d apre se nt en ce i nv es ti ga ti on rep ort u si ng th e 2 00 6 v ers io n o f th e Gui de li ne s. In cal cu la ti ng Howar d’s gu id el in e ran ge , th e p ro ba ti on off ic er i ni ti al ly ass ig ne d h im a ba se off

en se lev el of 26 un de r U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (c), b as edinpa rt o n t he am ou ntof c rackco cai ne in vo lv edinhi s o ffen se . Two le ve ls were ad de d fo r hi s ag gr av at edrol e in th e cri m in al act iv it y , res ul ti ng ina to ta l o ffen se lev el of 2 8. Ba se d o n h is pri or co nv ic ti on s, Ho wardqu al ifi edfora cri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory of I V, whi ch , co m bi ne d wi thth e o ffen se lev el of 2 8, yield eda gu id el in e ran ge of 1 10 to 13 7 2 Case: 11-15211 Date Filed: 08/01/2012 Page: 2 of 5m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. The rel ev an t s ta tu te pro vi de d am an da to ry m in im um se nt en ce o f 10 y ears forHowar d’s o ffen se . The pro ba ti on off

ic er al so cla ss ifi edHowar d a s a c aree r of fen de r un de r U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1, l ead in g t o agu id el in e ran ge of 3 60 m on th s t o l ife im pr is on m en t, b utth e d is tri ctco urt fo un d tha t a c aree r-o ffen de r se nt en ce wo ul d b e un reas on ab le an d s en te nc edHowar d t o 1 37 m on th s i n p ris on , th e h ig h e ndof t he
or ig in al gu id el in e ran ge . In 2 00 8, Ho wardfil eda § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n t o re du ce hi s s en te nc e p ur su an t t o Am en dm en t 7 06 to th e Gui de li ne s, ar gu in g t ha t the
am en dm en t re du cedhi s g ui de li ne ran ge to 92 to 11 5 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. The

1 di st ric t co urt g ran te d Ho ward ’s m ot io n, b uton ly redu cedhi s s en te nc e to 12 0
m on th s, as th atwas t he st atut ory m in im um forhi s o ffen se . Subs eque nt ly, Howar d fi le d t he in st an t § 35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n t o re du ce h is
se nt en ce, p red ic at edon Am en dm en t 7 50 . The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d Ho ward ’s
m ot io n o n the gro un d t ha t Am en dm en t 7 50 di d n otlo wer h is gu id el in e ran ge , as he was s en te nc edto th e st atut ory m in im um term of i m pr is on m en t. Ho wardno w ap pe al s. II.
Amendment 706, like Amendme nt 750, lowere d the base offe nse leve ls for ce rtain 1 quantities of cr ack c ocaine under U .S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). SeeU.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 706. 3 Case: 11-15211 Date Filed: 08/01/2012 Page: 3 of 5W e rev ie w de no vo “ th e d is tri ctco urt’s l eg al co nc lu si on s re ga rd in g t he

sc op e o f it s au th or it y

un de r th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Mo or e , 54 1 F .3d13 23 , 13 26 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (quo ta ti onom it te d) . Und er § 35 82 (c)( 2) , whe re a d efen dant ’s term of i m pr is on m en t was ba se d o n agu id el in e ran ge “ th at ha s s ub se qu en tl y

be enlo weredby the Sen te nc in g C omm is si on ,” a d is tri ctco urt ha s t he di sc ret io n t o re du ce the sen te nc e “ if s uc h areduc ti on is co ns is te ntwith ap pl ic ab le po li cy

st at em en ts ” o f th e Gui de li ne s. 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) . The ap pl ic ab le po li cy

st at em en t, fo un d i n U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 0, l is ts th os e g ui de li ne am en dm en ts th atm ay

ap pl y retro act iv el y

to reduc e a s en te nc e, an d Am en dm en t 75 0 (p art s A an d C on ly) is i nc lu de d i n t ha t l is t. U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .10 (c). Ho wev er, a se nt en ce re du ct io n i s n otau th or iz edif t he li st edam en dm en t “ do es no t h av e th e effe ctof l owe rin g t he de fen da nt ’s app li cab le gu id el in e ran ge ” due to th e o pe rat io n of an ot he r gu id el in e o r a s ta tu to ry pro vi si on , su ch as am an da to ry min im um term of im pr is on m en t. Id
. § 1 B1 .10 (a)( 2) (B); U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .10 , comm en t. (n .1(A) ). W e h av e h el d t ha t “ a se nt en ci ng co urt l ack s ju ris di ct io n t o c on si de r a § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n, ev enwhen anam en dm en t wo ul d l owe r th e d efen da nt ’s ot he rwis e-ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne s s en te nc in g rang e, whe n t he de fen da ntwas se nt en cedon th e b as is of am an da to ry m in im um .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Mi ll s , 61 3 F .3d 10 70 , 10 78 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ); see al so Uni te d Sta tes v. Will ia ms , 54 9 F .3d13 37 , 4 Case: 11-15211 Date Filed: 08/01/2012 Page: 4 of 513 38 -4 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) (ho ld in g t ha t a d efen da ntwas n oteli gi bl e fo r a

§ 3 58 2( c)(2 ) reduc ti on un de r Am en dm en t 7 06 be cau se he was s ub ject t o a st atut ory m in im um , eve n t ho ug h h e h adrece iv eda do wnwar d d ep artur e fro m th e m an da to ry

m in im um ). Inth is cas e, Howar d was sen te nc edto a st atut ory m in im um term of 1 0 years (1 20 m on th s) inpri so n wh enth e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d h is fir st§ 3 58 2( c)(2 )
m ot io n, an d t hi s t erm

als o b ecame his gu id el in e ran ge . Se eU.S.S.G. § 5 G1.1 (b ) (“ Whe re a s ta tu to ril y

requi redm in im

um sen te nc e is gre at er tha n t he m ax im um of th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge , th e st atut or il y requi redm in im

um sen te nc e sh al l b e th e g ui de li ne sen te nc e.”). Bec au se Howar d was sen te nc edon th e b as is of a st atut ory m in im um , Am en dm en t 7 50 ha d n o e ffec t o n h is gu id el in e ran ge , andth e di st ric t co urt l ack edjuri sd ic ti on to co ns id er h is § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n. Se e Mil ls , 61 3 F .3dat 1 07 8; W

il li ams , 54 9 F .3dat 1 33 8- 42 ; see al so U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .10 (a)( 2) (B) a ndco m m en t. (n .1(A) ). Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm . AFFIRMED.

5 Case: 11-15211 Date Filed: 08/01/2012 Page: 5 of 5