### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT S eptember 14 , 2 005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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. 04- 1245 9 Non-A rgum ent Calendar
D. C. Dock etNo. 9 6- 10 00 6- CR-S H UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us RICKY LEE JONES, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Southern D istrict of Florida (S ep te m be r 14, 200 5) Be fo re T JO FL A T , H U L L a nd W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: In United State s v. Jones (Jones I), Nos. 96-5089 and 97-428 5 (11th Cir. 1997 ) (unpublis hed), w e af firm ed appellant’ s convictio ns on all coun ts of a four-As we indicate infra , Amendment 599 only applies to appe llant’s Count Isentenc e. 1 Ap pe lla nt’ s mo tio n, ho we ve r, a

pp e are d to se e k r e se nte nc ingon Counts I I Iand

I V a s w e ll. Ap pe lla nt i mpl ie d th at ha d th e c ourt no t ma de the e nh anc e me nt, its se nte nc e on Count I 2 would have be en less than 108 months, and its sentenc es on Counts I I Iand IV would have been less as we ll. 2 co un t i nd ic tm en t: Co un t I, p os se ss io n o f m ari juan a, in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 841( a) ; C ount

I I, c ar ry ing af ir earm ( a shor t- barr el ed sho tgun) dur ing a nd i n relation to a drug traffic king offense, in viol ation of 18 U.S .C. § 924(c)(1)(A ), (B )( i) ; C ount

I II , be ing af

el on i n po sse ssi on o f a fi re ar m , in vio la tio n of 922( g) (1 ); a nd C ount

I V , pos se ssi on o f anunr eg ist er ed , sho rt -b ar re le d sh otg un, in vio la tio n of

26 U
. S. C. §§ 5 861( d) a nd 5 871. I n a ppe al ing , appe llant d id n ot challenge his sentences: concurrent prison term s of 108 m onth s on Coun ts I, III , an d I V , a nd a

c onse cu tiv e pr iso n se nte nc e of 120 m onths o n C ount

I I, w hic h 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (c)( 1) (D)(i i) r eq ui redth e co ur t t o i m po se in th is cas e. App el la nt su bs eq ue nt ly m ov edth e d is tri ctco ur t p ur su an t t o 1 8 U.S.C. § 3582 (c )( 2) to m odi fy

his “ se nte nc e” ba se d onA m en dm en t 59 9 of the S en te nc ing G uid el ine s. H e ar gue d th at , und er the A m en dm en t, the dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d no t 1 ha ve e nhanc ed

his Co unt

I of fe nse le ve l f

or pos se ssi on o f a fi re ar

m be ca use he
rece ived a separate, consecutive sentence of 120 m onth s’ im prisonm ent under Co unt I I fo r the sa m e co nduc t. T he c ourt sum m ar ily de nie d hi s m oti on and h e 2 ap pe al ed
. W e va cate d th e co urt’ s j udgm en t and r em an de d th e ca se w iththe3

ins tr uc tio n th at

the c ourt e nga ge in the tw o- part appr oa chto a § 35 82( c) (2 ) m oti on
ca lle d f or by U nit ed S ta te s v. V au tie r, 144 F
. 3d 7 56, 760 ( 11th C ir
. 199 8) , i. e. , by (1) re assessing the defendant’ s sentencing p ackage under the G uidelin es, a s
am en de d, an d (2 ) co ns id eri ng th e se nt en ci ng fact or s o f 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). Uni te d S ta te s v . Jo ne s (J on es II), No . 02 -1 63 40 (11 th Cir . 20 02 3) (un pu bl is he d)
. O n r em an d th e dis tr ic t c ourt f oll ow ed our ins tr uc tio ns and, a ft er

doi ng s o, de nie d a ppe llant’ s m oti on. S ee O rd er da te d M ay

4, 200 4. Appe llant n owappe al s,
co nte ndi ng, a m ong oth er thi ngs, that the c ourt e rr ed in fi xin g th e se nte nc e range fo r Co unt I a nd i m ply ing that this e rr or

m at er ia lly

ta int s hi s se nte nc es on C ount s III an d IV. W e “ re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n w he the r to r ed uc e a se nte nc e pur suant to 18 U.S .C. § 3582 (c)( 2) for an abuse of discretion.” U nited States v. V autier, 144 F. 3d at 75 9 n. 3. A s no te d a bove , the dis tr ic t c ourt f

oll ow ed V au tie r’ s tw ostep approach. T he court m ay have err ed, how ever, in determ ining the sentence
range f or Co unt I
. T he e rr or , w hic h w e w ill a ssu m e oc curr ed , ha d to do w ith ap pe llant’ s C ri m ina l H ist or y Cate gor y , not his ba se of

fe nse le ve l; the c ourt sh oul d ha ve us edcat eg ory

IV in st eadof V i n d et erm in in g t he sen te nc e ran ge . A s in dic at ed

in its j udgm en t of

c onvi ct ionin thi s c as e, the se nte nc es the
co urt i m pose d onCo unt s I , I II , a nd I V e xc ee de d th e se nte nc e range s pr es cr ibe d byCount Iinvolved the possession of 41.7 g rams of ma rijuana. 3 As is the case with Count I , the cour t applied the wr ongCriminal History Categ ory , V 4 instead of IV. Had it used IV, the sente nce r ang e for Counts I I Iand IV would have been 63 to 78 months, not 77 t o 96 months. I n either e vent, the sente nces on those c ounts constitute upward depar tures. 4 the Guidelines. T he guidelin e for the C ount I m arij uana offense —at offense le vel 3 8, see U. S. S. G. § 2D1.1(a )(3)( C)(17) and (b)(3), and category V—c alled for a
se nte nc e of

15 t o 21 m onths’ im

pr iso nm en t. T he se nte nc e ap pe llant r ec ei ve d, tho ugh, w as 108 m onths, asub stanti al upw ar d de part ur e. T he gui de lin e fo r the Co un ts III an d IV fi rear m off en se s— atoff

en se lev el 22 , see U.S.S.G. § 2K 2. 2( a) (3 ), a nd c at eg or

y V—c al le d f

or ase nte nc e of

77 t o 96 m onths’ im pr iso nm en t. L ike the se nte nc e on C ount I , the se nte nc es appe llant r ec ei ve d on th os e co un ts , 10 8 m on th s, co ns ti tu te d s ub st an ti al up wardde pa rtu res . Appellant did no t appeal any of his sentences in Jon es I. T herefor e, they are la wfu l as a m at te r of

law, s ub ject o nl y to th e ap pl ic at io n o f Am en dm en t 5 59 . On
re m an d, a s w e ind ic at e ab ove , the dis tr ic t c ourt a ppl ie d A m en dm en t 59 9 in
ac co rd an ce w ithJon es I I’ s m an da te ; ho nor ing the A m en dm en t, it c al cu la te d th e base offense level f

or Count I without usi ng the Special Of fense Char acter istic, U. S. S. G. § 2D1.1(b)( 1), f or possessi on of a fire arm . This lower ed the sentence
range f or that c ount . S inc e A m en dm en t 59 9 ha s no appl ic at ionto Co unt s I II a nd IV , the of fe nse le ve l the c ourt us ed f or tho se c ount s, 22, w as c or re ct . 4In its order of Ma y 4, 2004, denying a

ppellant’s motion, the court stated: 5 Applying the § 3553(a) fac tors to J ones lea ds this C ourt to decline to exercise its discretion to reduc e Jones’ term of imprisonment. J ones’ c riminal history

cate g ory signific antly

under- repr esente d the seriousness of the defe ndant’s cr iminal hist ory and/or the lik e lih oo d th at th e de fe nd ant w ill c omm it f ur the r c ri me s. 5 T he que sti on thus be co m es w he the r, a ft er c om ply ing w ithour
m an da te —r ed et er

m ini ng the se nte nc e range s and c onsi de ri ng the se nte nc ing factors of 18 U .S .C. § 3553 (a)—the c ourt would have im posed th e sam e sentences appellant init ially

rec eived. T here is no doub t that he would have been sentenced to 120 m onth s’ im

prisonm ent on Coun t II and that su ch sentence w ould have been consecutive to th e sentences on Counts I, II I, and IV
. The c ourt departed
up wa rd l y fr o m

t h e g u i d el i n e r an g es o n Co u n t s I, II I, an dIV b ec au s e ap p el l an t ’s
cr im ina l hi sto ry

und er ind ic at ed his pot en tia l f

or r ec idi vis m . A ft er

c onsi de ri ng the
se nte nc ing f

ac tor s of § 35 53( a) —i n part ic ular § 35 53( a) (2 ) (C ), the ne ed f or the sentence “ to protect the pub lic from further c rim es of the defendant”—the court
co nc lud ed

that the se nte nc es ini tia lly im pose d w er e ap pr opr ia te . W e fi nd n o 5 ab use of dis cr et ionin the c ourt’ s c onc lus ionthat the se nte nc es w er e ap pr opr ia te
an d t hu s i ts de ci si on to de ny app el la nt ’s dd35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n. AFFIR MED.