FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 22, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 10 57 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 5- cr-0 00 61 -RAL-EAJ- 3

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JEVON SCOTT, a.k .a. Icem an , D efen 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 Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jun e 2 2, 2 01 2) Befo re TJ OFLAT, JORDAN andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Je vo n S co ttap pe al s the de ni al of h is m ot io n fo r a s en te nc e reduc ti on ,pu rs ua ntto 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ), whi chso ug htto m od ify his 18 0- m on th

se nt en ce fo r co ns pi rin g t o p os se ss co cai ne ba se with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te ba se d o n Am en dm en t 7 50 to th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es . He arg ue s tha t, b ecau se th e Gui de li ne s ar e m erel y

advi so ry , th e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d h av e reduc edhi s s en te nc e pu rs ua ntto Am en dm en t 7 50 , eve n t ho ug h h e was sen te nc edas acare er o ffen de r un de r U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1. W e rev ie w de no vo a di stric t co urt’s co nc lu si on s ab ou t the sco pe of i ts leg al au th or it y un de r 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ). Uni te d Sta tes v. Mo or e , 54 1 F .3d13 23 , 13 26 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Am en dm en t 7 50 , whi chha s b eenm ad e ret ro act iv e, rev is ed th e Dru g Qu an ti ty T ab le inU.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (c), an d re du cedth e b as e o ffen se le ve ls ass oc ia te d wi th va rio us am ou nt s o f cra ckco cai ne . U.S.S.G. App . C, am en ds . 75 0, 7 59 . Neverth el es s, a s en te nc e reduc ti on is no t au th or iz edun de r § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) if

th e rel ev an t am en dm en t d oe s n otha ve th e eff ectof l owe rin g t he de fen da nt ’s app li cab le gu id el in e ran ge du e to th e o pe rat io n o f an othe r gu id el in e. U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .10 (a)( 2) (B); U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .10 , comm en t. (n .1). Thus , a retro act iv e am en dm en t t o § 2D1 .1 d oe s n otalt er the gu id el in e ran ge of ade fen da nt se nt en cedas acare er o ffen de r un de r § 4 B1 .1. Se e Mo or e , 54 1 F .3dat 1 33 0. Fu rth erm or e, § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) an d t he ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e p ol ic y st at em en ts in § 1 B1 .10 st il l b in d adi st ric t co urt’s d is cret io n, re gard le ss of t he advi so ry na tu re o f 2th e Gui de li ne s. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Mel vi n , 55 6 F .3d11 90 , 11 92 -9 3 (1 1th C ir.

20 09 ). Here, the Dis tri ctCo urt d idno t err whe n i t d en ie d the § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n reque st in g re li ef u nd er Am en dm en t 7 50 be cau se Sco ttwas o rig in al ly sen te nc edas a car eer o ffen de r un de r § 4 B1 .1, n otun de r § 2 D1.1 . Thu s, Am en dm en t 7 50 ha s n o effe cton Sco tt ’s app li cab le gu id el in e ran ge , andhe is in el ig ib le for§ 3 58 2( c)(2 ) rel ie f on th atba si s. Fu rth erm or e, co nt rary to Sc ot t’s ar gu m en t, the Dis tri ctCo urt was bo un d b y

§ 3 58 2( c)(2 ) an d t he ap pl ic ab le po li cy st at em en ts co nt ai ne d i n § 1 B1 .10 , reg ard le ss of t he advi so ry na ture o f th e Gui de li ne s. Upo n re vi ew of

th e rec or d a ndco ns id erat io n o f th e p art ie s’ bri efs , we affi rm . AFFIR MED.

3