T he H onorabl e T homas A
. W i s eman, Jr
. , U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct Ju dge f or t he M i dd l e D i s t r i ct of T enn es s ee, * si t t i ng by desi gnat i o n.

NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 10a0431n.06 No. 09-1783
UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA, P laintif f-App ellee,
v. DE SHA WN SIM S, Defendan t-Appellant. / ON AP P EA L F RO M THE U NI TED STA TES D ISTRIC T C OU RT F OR THE EASTE RN DISTRICT OF M ICHIGAN OP IN ION

BEFORE: BOGG S and CLAY, Circ uit Jud ges; and WISE MAN, D istrictJudge. * CLAY, Circ uit Jud ge. Def endant, De Shawn Sims , ap p ea l s from his reduc ed sente nce enter ed by

the district court pursua

nt to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) on May 22, 2009. Upon Def

endant’ s motion, the dist rict cour

t reduc ed his previously

imposed sentence of 210 months for possession and distribution of cocaine and coc aine ba se to 168 months’ incarc eration. He ar gu es t h at t he district court ha d the authority

under United States v. Book er , 5 43 U. S. 2 20 (20 05) t o c on du c t a fu ll
se nte nc inghe ari ngand

to cons ide r a s a dv iso ry

the ame nd e d guid e lin e s r a ng e fo r c oc a ine ba se offe nses. See U.S.S.G. Supp.App. C, Amdts. 706 and 713 (re ducingapplicable offe nse leve ls forNo. 09-1783

2 cer tain coca ine base offe nses). F or the re aso n s s et fo rth in this opini on, we AF F IRM the district
c ourt ’s jud g me nt. BACK GR OUND Def endant wa s convicted f

ollowing a

jury trial in Marc h 2000 of one count of distribution of a controlled substance and one count of possession with intent to di stribute a contr olled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841, and two counts of aiding and abetting in the possession with intent to distribute a controlled substanc e, in violation of 2 1 U. S
. C
. § 8 41 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. He wa s sentenced t o 2 6 2 m onths’ incar cer ation. Followinghabea s proce eding s pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Def

endant wa s rese ntence d to 210 months’ incarc eration. After the Sentencing Commi ssion pr omulgated amendments 706 (lower ing the gu i d elines rang es for

cer tain cocai n e b as e offe nses by loweringthe offe nse leve l by two) and 713 ( making
ame ndme nt 7 06 re tr oa c tiv e ), De fe nd ant f ile d a mot ion to r e du c e his se nte nc e purs ua nt t o 1 8 U .S. C. § 3582(c) in March 2008. H e re quested to be se ntence d at the low end of the amende d g uidelines
ra ng e , whic h th e dis tr ic t c ourt did in s e nte nc ing De fe nd ant to 1 68 months ’ i nc arc e ra tio n. Th is t ime ly appea l followed. DI SCU SSIO N I. Stand ard of Review Be cause this appeal pre sents a question of law, our st andar d of review ordinarily would be de novo. United States v. Carter , 500 F.3d 486, 488 (6th Cir. 2007) . Howeve r, beca use De fenda

nt did no t r a ise his Booke r challeng e during the § 3582 proce eding , the g overnme nt a rgues t h at Def endant has waived this issue by not prese nting it t o the trial cour t. See U nited States v. Hay es ,No. 09-1783

3 218 F.3d 615, 619 ( 6th Cir. 2000). We retain jurisdiction to consider whe ther a plain err or has
occur red, id. at 619-20, a

nd may revie w this challeng e for plain err or. II. Ana lys is Once a sente nce ha s become final, a district c ourt is without power to impose a new se ntence , except in a fe w limited circ umstances such as t hose desc ribed in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). T hat sec tion provides that a district c ourt may modify a sente nce in the case of a defe ndant who has been sentenc ed to a term of imprisonment base d on a sente ncingra n ge t h at has subsequently been lowe red by

the Sentencing Commis sio n p ur su ant t o 2 8 U .S. C. 9 94 (o ) .
. . a ft e r c on sid e ri ng the fa c tor s se t f or th in s e c tio n 3 55 3( a ) t o the e xtent th at th e y are a pp lic a ble , if su c h a re du c tio n is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by

the SentencingCommi ssion. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) . The Sentenc ing Commi ssion issued a policy statement, § 1B 1.10, to guide district courts in re du ci n g sentenc es, pursua nt to severa l amendments includingamendment 706. That sec tion states, in re l ev ant part, that “the cour t shall not reduce the def endant’ s term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)( 2) and this policy statement to a ter

m t h at is less than the minimum of the amende d g uideline rang e deter mined under subdivision (1) o f t h i s s ubsection.” U. S
. S
. G. § 1 B1
. 1 0 (b )( 2 )( A)
. T h i s p o l i cy s t at em en t ef fe ct i v el y m ak es th e am en d edgu i d el i n es ra n ge the mandator

y lower bounda

ry of the sente ncingreduc tion permitted pursuant to § 3582(c)
. Def endant a sks this C ourt to find the policy statement in § 1B1.10(b) (2)( A) unc onstitut ional in light of the inter

pretation of t h e S i x t h Am endment in Booke r , which made the sentenc ing g uidelines advisory

for or igina l sentence s. See B ooker , 543 U.S. at 259. Howeve r, cle ar pr ece dent from this Circuit and from the Supre me Court fore closes this argument. Dillon v. United States , --- U.S. ---, 2010 WL2400109 at *7 (2010) ( “Ac cording ly , [Def e n d a nt’ s ] S ixt h Ame ndment rig hts wereNo. 09-1783

4 not violated by the Dis trict Court’s adher ence to the instruction in § 1B1.10 to consider a re duction
on ly wi thi n th e ame nd e d Guid e lin e s r ang e .” ); United States v. W ashington , 5 84 F .3 d 6 93 , 70 1 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 9) (“W e hold t

hat pu rs ua nt t o 1 8 U .S. C. § 35 82 (c )( 2) , a dis tr ic t c ourt

is n ot a uth or ize d to reduc e a de fenda

nt’s sentenc e below the amende d Guidelines ra ng e.”)
. Def endant wa s sentence d to 168 months’ incar cer ation, which is the bot tom of t he guidelines rang e that he is subjec t to under the coca ine base amendments. His Six th Amendment rig hts were not impli cate d in the § 3582(c) proce eding , and the district cour t did not have the author ity to reduc e his se nte nc e be low

the ame nd e d guid e lin e s ra ng e . T he re fo re , D e fe nd ant’ s a pp e a l is wi tho ut m e ri t reg ardle ss of our standa

rd of r eview. CO NC LU SION For the re asons stated a

bove, we AF F IRM the district court’s order reduc ing D efe ndant’s sentenc e to 168 months’ incar cer ation.