[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 10 66 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :9 5- cr-0 04 30 -WPD-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ROBERT BUTLER, 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ju ly 30, 2 01 2) Befo re BARKETT, PRYOR an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:

Case: 12-10665 Date Filed: 07/30/2012 Page: 1 of 5Ro be rt B ut le r, a fed eral pri so ne r co nv ic te d o f a cra ckco cai ne off en se , ap pe al s the di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n t o re du ce hi s s en te nc e p er Am en dm en t 7 50 , whi chlo weredth e b as e o ffen se lev el s ap pl ic ab le to crac k c oc ai ne . See U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .10 (c). Onap pe al , But le r arg ue s th atth e rea so ni ng of F reem anv. Un it edSta te s, _

__U.S. __

_, 1 31 S. Ct. 2 68 5 (2 01 1) , un de rm in edto th e p oi ntof abr og at io n t hi s C ou rt’s ra ti on al e inUni te d St at es v. Mo or e, 54 1 F .3d13 23 (11 thCir . 20 08 ). He ass ert s tha t ev enth ou gh he was sen te nc edas acare er o ffen de r, he is no t ca te go ric al ly ine li gi bl e fo r a s en te nc e reduc ti on un de r § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) be cau se th e o ffen se lev el forhi s und erl y in g c rack co cai ne off

en se was “ a rel ev an t p artof t he an al yti cal fram ewo rkth e d is tri ctco urt us edto de te rm in e” Bu tl er’s s en te nc e. W e rev ie w de n ov o t he di st ric t co urt’s l eg al co nc lu si on s re gard in g t he sco pe of it s au th or it y

un de r 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ). Id. at13 26 . A di st ric t co urt m ay

m od ify an i m

pr is on m en t t erm

“ in th e cas e o f a de fen da ntwho ha s b eensen te nc edto a te rm of i m pr is on m en t b as edon 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 ). Howev er, a re du ct io n i n t he im pr is on m en t t erm

is no t au th or iz edun de r § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) whe re the li st edam en dm en t d oe s n otha ve th e eff ectof l owe rin g t he 2 Case: 12-10665 Date Filed: 07/30/2012 Page: 2 of 5de fen da nt ’s app li cab le gu id el in e ran ge “be cau se of t he op erat io n o f an ot he r

gu id el in e o r st atut ory

pro vi si on (e.g ., a st atut ory m an da to ry

m in im um term of im pr is on m en t).” U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 0, cmt. 1 ; s ee al so id . § 1 B1 .10 (a)( 2) (B); Mo or e, 54 1 F .3dat 1 33 0 (“ Whe re a re tro act iv el y ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e am en dm en t reduc es a de fen da nt ’s bas e o ffen se lev el , bu t d oe s n otalt er the sen te nc in g ra ng e up on whi chhi s o r he r se nt en ce was ba se d, § 35 82 (c)( 2) do es no t au th or iz e a reduc ti on insen te nc e.”). A di st ric t co urt fo ll ows a two -s te p p ro ces s i n ru li ng on a § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n. Un it edSta te s v . Brav o, 2 03 F.3d77 8, 7 80 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Fir st , th e co urt m us t re cal cu la te th e d efen da nt ’s sen te nc e “by sub st itut in g t he am en de d gu id el in e ran ge forth e o rig in al ly app li edgu id el in e ran ge , andth enus in g t ha t n ew ba se lev el to de te rm in e wha t u lt im at e se nt en ce i t wo ul d h av e im po se d.” Id . “ In un de rtaki ng th is fir stst ep , on ly the am en de d g ui de li ne is ch an ge d. Al l o th er 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 s en te nc in g re m ai n in ta ct .” Id . (qu ot at io ns om it te d) . If itreac he s the sec on d s te p, the co urt m us t de ci de , init s d is cret io n, wh ethe r to ret ai n t he ori gi na l s en te nc e o r to res en te nc e th e el ig ib le de fen da ntun de r th e am en de d g ui de li ne ran ge . Id. at78 1. Whe re a d efen da nt ’s sen te nc e is “ba se d o n” th e g ui de li ne ran ge ap pl ic ab le to care er o ffen de rs un de r U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1, the de fen da nt ’s bas e o ffen se lev el 3 Case: 12-10665 Date Filed: 07/30/2012 Page: 3 of 5un de r U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 pl ay s n o ro le inth e cal cu la ti on of h is gu id el in e ran ge .

See Mo or e, 54 1 F .3dat 1 32 7. Thus , eve n wh ena retro act iv e am en dm en t re du ces su cha de fen da nt ’s bas e o ffen se lev el , th e am en dm en t wo ul d n otlo wer h is ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge be cau se of the ap pl ic at io n o f th e car eer o ffen de r gu id el in es . See id . at13 27 -2 8, 1 33 0. InFree m an , fiv e jus ti ces of t he Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t en te rin g i nt o aRu le 11 (c)( 1) (C) p le a ag reem en t d idno t ca te go ric al ly bar a d efen da ntfro m ob ta in in g rel ie f pu rs ua ntto 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c). See Free m an , __ _ U.S. at__

_, 1 31 S. Ct. 1 at26 95 (So to m ay or , J., co nc urrin g) . Rath er, wh ere s uc h apl ea ag reem en t

“ ex pr es sl y

us es a Gui de li ne s s en te nc in g ra ng e ap pl ic ab le to th e ch arg edoff en se to es tabl is h t he term

of i m pr is on m en t, an d t ha t ra ng e is subs eque nt ly lower edby the Uni te d S ta te s Se nt en ci ng Co m m is si on , th e te rm

of i m pr is on m en t i s ‘bas edon ’ th e ran ge em pl oyed an d t he de fen da ntis eli gi bl e fo r se nt en ce re du ct io n u nd er § 3 58 2( c)(2 ).” Id . W e rem ai n b ou ndby the rul e o f ou r pr io r pr eced en t “un le ss an d u nt il itis ov erru le d o r un de rm in edto th e p oi ntof abr og at io n b y th e Supr em e Co urt o r by th is [C]ou rt s it ti ng enba nc .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Arch er, 5 31 F.3d13 47 , 13 52 (11 th

See Mar ks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193, 97 S. C t. 990, 993 (1977) (r uling 1 that, in a fra g mented dec ision, “the holding of the Court may

be viewe d as that position taken by those Member s who conc urre d in the judgme nts on the narr owest grounds”) . 4 Case: 12-10665 Date Filed: 07/30/2012 Page: 4 of 5Ci r. 20 08 ). “ Whi le anin te rv en in g d eci si on of t he Supr em e Co urt ca n o ve rru le th e

de ci si on of apri orpa ne l o f ou r co urt, the Supr em e Co urt d eci si on m us t b e cl earl y on po in t.” Id . (qu ot at io ns om it te d) . W e d is ag ree wi th Bu tl er’s co nt en ti on th atFree m anab ro ga te d M oo re. Free m anha s n ot hi ng to do with h ow re tro act iv e am en dm en ts affe ctcare er of fen de rs . Freem anwas d eci de d i n t he co nt ex t o f a Ru le 11 (c)( 1) (C) g ui lt y pl ea, whi chall ows th e p ro se cu to r an d d efen da ntto reac h apl ea b arg ai n s pe ci fy in g a pa rti cu la r te rm

of i m pr is on m en t. InFree m an , th e Co urt h el d t ha t b ecau se su chan ag reem en t m ig htbe ex pr es sl y ba se d o n agu id el in e ran ge , th e res ul ti ng sen te nc e co ul d b e aff

ect edby a retro act iv e am en dm en t. The care er o ffen de r gu id el in es , by co nt ras t, ar e b as edon th e st atut ory m ax im um sen te nc e fo r th e o ffen se , see 28 U.S.C. § 9 94 (h ), an d acare er o ffen de r’s se nt en ce i s b as edon th atst atut e. Free m anis no t “ cl earl y

on po in t” an d t he refo re d idno t ab ro ga te Mo or e. See Arch er, 5 31 F.3dat 1 35 2. Here, the di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly den ie d B ut le r’s 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n b ecau se itis un di sp ut edth atth e ret ro act iv e ap pl ic at io n o f Am en dm en t 7 50 wou ldno t l owe r hi s g ui de li ne ran ge . AFFIRMED. 2 Butler ’s re quest for or al argument is DENI ED. 2 5 Case: 12-10665 Date Filed: 07/30/2012 Page: 5 of 5