FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT MARCH 6, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 05- 1006 4 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D.C. Dock etNo. 9 8- 00 06 5- CR-OR L-22 -J GG UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us COR NE LL DE VO N A TW EL L, a. k. a . Banj i, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Middle District of Florida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(M ar ch 6, 200 6) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, CA RN E S an d P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: D ef en dant- Appe llant C or

ne ll D ev on A tw el l, af

ed er al pr iso ne r ap pe al ing pr o se , appe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of his se ct ion18 U . S. C. §35 82( c) (2 )2

m otion seeking m odification of his term of im prisonm ent. N o reversible er ror has b e e ns h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. D ef en dant w as c onvi ct ed

in June 199 8 of

f ive c ount s: ( 1) c onsp ir ac y to poss es s m ar ij uanaw ithint en t t o di str ibu te , in vio la tio n of 21 U . S. C. §84 6; ( 2) poss ession o f m arij uana with intent to dis tribute, in violation of 21 U. S. C. §841 (a )( 1) and 1 8 U . S. C. §2; ( 3) c onsp ir ac y to use and c ar

ry af ir earm dur ing and in r el at ionto a dr

ug tra ff ic kin g of fe nse , in vio la tio n of

18 U . S. C. § 92 4( o) ; ( 4) usi ng and c ar

ry ing af ir earm dur ing and i n r el at ionto a dr ug tra ff ic kin g of fe nse , in
v i o l a t i o no f

1 8 U. S . C . § § 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) an d( 2 ) ; an d( 5 ) p o s s e s s i o no f af i r e arm b y a co nvi ct ed f el on, in vio latio n of

18 U . S. C. §§ 9 22( g) (1 ) an d 92 4( e) . T he P SI f ir st ca lc ulate d atot al of

fe nse le ve l of

26: the ba se of

fe nse le ve l w as 24 p ur suant t o U. S. S. G. §§ 3D1.3(a) and 2K2.1, plus a two-level incre ase w as im posed un der § 2K2. 1( b) (4 ) be ca

use the f ir earm w ithw hic h D ef

en dant w as f

ound w as sto le n. B ut the PSI also determ ined that the career offender and arm ed car eer offender provisi ons in U. S. S. G. §§4B1.2 and 4B1.4(b)(2), applied; un der the career of fen de r pr ov is io ns , th e PSI r eco m m en de d a n e nh an cedoff

en se lev el of 3 7, a crim inal histo ry

category of V I, and a guideline range of 360 m onth s to life. The district court deter

m ined that scoring under the care er off ender provisi ons was proper but concluded th at D efendant’ s crim inal histo ry wa s over-3

represe nted. T he district court decided to depart downwar d to a base offense level of 30 . Defen da ntwas s en te nc edto a to ta l o f 27 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. D ef en dant m ove d purs uant t o 18 U . S. C. 358 2( c) (2 ) fo r a re duc tio n of se nte nc e ar gui ng tha t A m en dm en t 59 9 to U . S. S. G . § 2K2. 4 a ppl ie d r etro ac tiv el y to preclude his po ssessio n of a fir earm from contributin g to his sentence calculation und er m ore than one guid eline section. T he district court denied D ef en dant’ s m oti on w ith out

opi nio n. W e rev ie w den ia l o f a m ot io n t o re du ce s en te nc e u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 3582 (c )( 2) f

or abuse of dis cr et ion . S ee Unit ed

S ta te s v. Br ow n, 332 F . 3d 1 341, 1343 (11 Cir. 2003 ). U nder certain circum stances, a court m ay , a fter th consideration o f sentencing factors set out in 18 U.S .C. § 3553 (a), reduce the ter m of im pr iso nm en t ba se d onalate r low er ing of the se nte nc ing r an ge by

the Sentencing Com

m issio n “ if such a re duction is consist ent with applicable policy statem ents issu ed by

the Sentencing Com

m issio n.” 18 U. S. C. § 358 2(c)( 2). Am endm ent 599 altered § 2K2.4 and clar ified the circum stances under which a c ourt m ay

im pose a we apons enh ancem ent on a defendant convicted of a fi re ar m s of fe nse und er

18 U . S. C. § 92 4( c) . S ee 200 0 F ed er al S en te nc ing G uid el ine s M anua l, Appe ndi x C ; se e al so Unit ed S ta te s v. P ri ngl e, 350 F . 3d 1 172, 1176 (11 Cir. 2003 ). But De fendant’ s first sentence ca lculation th at included

thDef

endant a lso argues that a r eduction is due unde r Amendment 600. Amendment 600 revise d 1 § 2K2.4 to prohibit the use of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) convictions “e ither to trigg er a pplication of the car eer offe nder guide line, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, or to dete rmine the a ppropriate offe nse leve l under that guid e lin e .” U. S.S. G. Manu a l Su pp . to Ap p. C (N ov . 1, 20 02 ). Ev e n a ssumin g argue nd o th at th is iss u e i s p ro p er l y

prese rved on a

ppeal - - Amendme nt 600 was not cited in De fenda nt’s motion -- Am e ndme nt 6 00 of

fe rs De fe nd ant n o r e lie f. Re tr oa c tiv e a pp lic atio n o f a guid e lin e s ame ndme nt i s consistent with SentencingCommi ssion poli cy o nly if the ame ndment is list ed in U.S.S.G.§ 1B1.10( c). See Armstrong , 347 F.3d at 907. Amendment 600 is not listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c ). The district c ourt’s failure to a pply Amendment 600 re troac tively to modify

Def endant’ s sentence supports no abuse of

discretion cla im. I d. 4 scoring un der § 2K2. 4 was tr um ped by the greater

sentence applicable to a career of fe nde r unde r Ch ap te r Fo ur ; § 2K2. 4 ha d no e ff ec t onthe se nte nc e ac tua lly im pose d. B ec au se D ef

en dant w as not

se nte nc ed

und er § 2K2. 4 ( the se ct ion addressed by

Am endm ent 599), A m endm ent 599 is inappos ite. See United States
v. S an de rs , 372 F . 3d 1 183, 118 6 ( 10 Ci r. 200 4) ( “ A m en dm en t 59 9 ha s no thi ng t o th do w ith§ 4B 1. 4 bu t i nst ea d a ppl ie s to § 2K2. 4 of

the G uid el ine s. ”) . A m en dm en t 599 can su

ppor t no r ed uc tio n inD ef

en dant’ s se nte nc e. S ee U nit ed S ta te s v. A rm str ong, 347 F . 3d 9 05, 907 ( 11 Ci r. 200 3) ( A m en dm en t 59 9 ha s no th ap pli catio n whe n ade fe ndant’ s se nte nc e w as not inc re as ed

be ca use of his poss es sio n of

af ir earm). N o a

buse of dis cr et ionha s be ensho w n. 1 AFFIRMED.