[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 12 25 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :9 0- cr-0 03 77 -RLV-J MF- 4 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 ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us GEORGE TRAVIS W ILLIAMS, a.k .a. Fran k Wil li s, J r., a.k .a. Trav is W il li am s, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll 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 North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 17 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, MARCUS an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

Case: 12-12251 Date Filed: 12/17/2012 Page: 1 of 5PER CURI AM:

InJu ly 199 1, a jury

co nv ic te d Geo rg e Trav is W il li am s o n a ll co un ts of a th ree- co un t i nd ic tm en t: Co un t On e, co ns pi racy to p os se ss with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te crac k c oc ai ne ; Co un t Two , po ss es si on with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te crac k c oc ai ne ; Co un t Th ree, trav el in g i n i nt ers ta te co m m erce with i nt en t t o c omm ita dr ug of fen se . He was the n s en te nc edto co nc urren t p ris onsen te nc es : 3 60 m on th s o n Co un ts One a ndTwo an d 6 0 m on th s o n C ou ntThre e. InOcto be r 20 11 , W il li am s m ov edth e Dis tri ctCo urt p ur su an t t o 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c) t o re du ce h is sen te nc e on Co un ts One a ndTwo b as edon Am en dm en t 7 50 to th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es . The co urt d en ie d h is m ot io n. He n ow ap pe al s. Insen te nc in g Wil li am s, the Dis tri ctCo urt, i n d et erm in in g t he ap pl ic ab le se nt en ce ra ng e o n C ou nt s On e an d Two , fou ndhi m res po ns ib le for10 ki lo gr am s of crac k c oc ai ne . He ask s tha t we d is reg ardth e fi nd in g i n re vi ewin g the co urt’s or de r de nyin g h is § 3 58 2( c) m ot io n, b ecau se itwas the jury’ s, n otth e co urt’s, pr ov in ce t o d et erm in e th e am ou ntof d ru gs in vo lv edinhi s o ffen se s, an d t he jury m ad e n o fi nd in g. We sh ou ldacco rd in gl y rev ers e th e Dis tri ctCo urt’s d en ia l o f hi s § 3 58 2( c) m ot io n due to su chab se nc e o f a jury fin di ng on th e dru g qua nt it y . A cou rt m ay

m od ify a term

of i m pr is on m en t o nl y

inli m it edcir cu m st an ces , in cl ud in g wh ere ade fen da nt“ ha s b eensen te nc edto a te rm of i m pr is on m en t b as ed 2 Case: 12-12251 Date Filed: 12/17/2012 Page: 2 of 5on a se nt en ci ng ran ge th atha s s ub se qu en tl y be enlo weredby the Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on .” 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ). Thu s, i f th e am en dm en t “ wou ldno t re su lt in a lo wer b as e o ffen se lev el an d g ui de li ne s ra ng e,” the de fen da ntis no t en ti tl edto be res en te nc edun de r § 3 58 2( c)(2 ). Uni te d Sta tes v. J ames , 54 8 F .3d98 3, 9 86 (1 1 Cir . 20 08 ). th Eve n i f th e d efen da ntis en ti tl edto be res en te nc ed , he d oe s n otrece iv e a de no vo res en te nc in g h eari ng . Uni te d Sta tes v. Br av o , 20 3 F .3d77 8, 7 81 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Thu s, a d is tri ctco urt m ay on ly sub st itut e th e am en de d g ui de li ne ran ge . Id. at78 0. “ All othe r gu id el in e ap pl ic at io n d eci si on s m ad e dur in g t he ori gi na l se nt en ci ng rem ai n i nt act .” Id. (qu ot at io n o m itte d) ; se e Uni te d Sta tes v. C othr an , 10 6 F .3d15 60 , 15 63 n.5 (11 thCir . 19 97 ) (h ol di ng th at , ina § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) pr oc eed in g, “ th e d is tri ctco urt was bo un d b y it s p rev io us de te rm in at io n wi th res pe ctto th e num

be r of m ari juan a p la nt s tha t wer e rel ev an t t o [the de fen da nt ’s] se nt en ce”) . Accor di ng ly, th e d is tri ctco urt m us t “ le av e al l o f it s p rev io us factua l de ci si on s i nt actwhen de ci di ng whet he r to ap pl y a gu id el in e ret ro act iv el y .” Co th ra n , 10 6 F .3dat 1 56 3 (quo ta ti on an d e m ph as is om itte d) . Am en dm en t 7 50 to th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es am en de d t he dru g qua nt it y tabl e in U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (c) t o re du ce o ffen se lev el s i n c rackco cai ne cas es by two le ve ls . Se e U.S.S.G. App . C, Am en d. 7 50 (20 11 ). Am en dm en t 7 50 was m ad e 3 Case: 12-12251 Date Filed: 12/17/2012 Page: 3 of 5retro act iv e b y Am en dm en t 7 59 , effec ti ve Nov em be r 1, 2 01 1. Se e id. , Am en d. 7 59 (2 01 1) . Am en dm en t 7 50 is li st edinU.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .10 (c). Se e U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .10 (c). A de fen da nt ’s bas e o ffen se lev el rem ai ns un ch an ge d a t l ev el 38 if h e was sen te nc edba se d o n aqu an ti ty of 8.4 ki lo gr am s o r m or e o f cra ckco cai ne . Se e Ja mes , 54 8 F .3dat 9 86 (ap pl y in g Am en dm en t 7 06 ); U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1(c )(1 ). The Dis tri ctCo urt p ro pe rly con cl ud edth atAm en dm en t 7 50 di d n otlo wer th e g ui de li ne sen te nc e ran ge ap pl ic ab le inW il li am s’s ca se . At se nt en ci ng , th e co urt ex pl ic it ly foundth atW il li am s was res po ns ib le for10 ki lo gr am s o f cra ck co cai ne . Becau se hi s o ffen se in vo lv edm or e th an8.4 ki lo gr am s o f cra ckco cai ne , Am en dm en t 7 50 di d n otlo wer the gu id el in e se nt en ce ra ng e b ecau se hi s b as e of fen se lev el in crea se d fr om 36 to 38 . Se e Ja mes , 54 8 F .3dat 9 86 ; U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (c)( 1) . Accor di ng ly, th e co urt p ro pe rly det erm in edth atW il li am s was in el ig ib le for§ 3 58 2( c) re li ef. Se e Ja mes , 54 8 F .3dat 9 86 . W il li am s’s ch al le ng e to th e Dis tri ctCo urt’s fi nd in g a t s en te nc in g t ha t h is of fen se s i nv ol ve d 1 0 k il og ram s o f cra ckco cai ne fai ls be cau se a § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) pr oc eed in g i s n ota de no vo res en te nc in g, an d “ al l ori gi na l s en te nc in g de te rm in at io ns rem ai n u nc ha ng edwith t he so le ex cep ti onof t he gu id el in e ran ge th atha s b eenam en de d s in ce the ori gi na l s en te nc in g.” Bra vo , 20 3 F .3dat 7 81 . To th e ex te ntth atW il li am s ar gu es th atth e co urt erredun de r App re ndi v. Ne w Jer se y , 4 Case: 12-12251 Date Filed: 12/17/2012 Page: 4 of 553 0 U.S. 4 66 , 12 0 S .Ct. 2 34 8, 1 47 L.Ed.2d43 5 (2 00 0) , be cau se th e dru g qua nt it y

was no t fo un d b y

a jury, hi s ar gu m en t is un av ai li ng be cau se App re ndidi d n ot in vo lv e a ret ro act iv el y

ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e am en dm en t an d i t d idno t p ro vi de an in de pe nd en t juris di ct io na l b as is to reduc e Will ia m s’s s en te nc e. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Mor en o , 42 1 F .3d12 17 , 12 20 (11 Cir . 20 05 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at , bec au se th § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) do es no t p ro vi de a ba si s fo r a de no vo res en te nc in g, Supr em e Co urt de ci si on s b y

th em se lv es do no t p ro vi de § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) rel ie f be cau se th ey are n ot retro act iv el y

ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es am en dm en ts ). AFFIRMED. 1

Wil liams argues that the District Court should have grante d him § 3582(c) r elief 1 beca use his sentenc es on Counts One and Tw o could not exceed 10 ten year s. He ra ised this argument for the f

irst time in his reply

brief; thus, it has bee n waived. See Timson v. Simpson , 518 F.3d 870, 874 ( 11th Cir. 2008). 5

Case: 12-12251 Date Filed: 12/17/2012 Page: 5 of 5