FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 2, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 00 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :9 9- cr-0 00 27 -WPD-20 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 ANDRE CHUNG, a.k.a. Andy , 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 So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jun e 2 , 20 11 ) Befo re HULL, PRYOR an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Pro se de fen da nt -ap pe ll an t An dr e Ch un g app eal s the de ni al of h is 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n t o m od ify or reduc e h is sen te nc e. Fo r th e rea so ns th atfol lo w,we affi rm .

In19 99 , Chu ng was c on vi ct edof c on sp ira cy to po ss es s wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e co cai ne , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ) an d 8 46 . In the pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt ( PSI) , th e p ro ba ti on off ic er n ot edth atChun g was res po ns ib le forat l eas t 1 00 ki lo gr am s o f co cai ne , whi chpl acedChun g’s b as e of fen se lev el at 3 6 u nd er U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 . W ith n o e nh an cem en ts or r educ ti on s, an d acri m in al hi st ory

cat eg ory II, Ch un g’s g ui de li ne im pr is on m en t ra ng e was 21 0 to 26 2 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. Ch un g o bjec te d t ha t h is ba se off en se lev el sh ou ld no t h av e b eenba se d o n m or e th an50 ki lo gr am s o f co cai ne be cau se anam ou nt hi gh er tha n 5 0 k il og ram s was in co ns is te ntwith g ran d jury tes ti m on y . At se nt en ci ng , th e co urt o ve rru le d C hu ng ’s ob jecti on s an d a ls o app li eden ha nc em en ts fo r ob st ru ct io n o f jus ti ce u nd er § 3C 1.1 an d p os se ss io n o f a fi rearm un de r § 2 D1.1 . Und er the co urt’s ca lc ul at io ns , Chu ng ha d a n o ffen se lev el of 4 0 a nda gu id el in e ran ge of 3 24 to 40 5 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Ch un g was sen te nc edto 40 0 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. Ondi rectap pe al , th is co urt af firm edChun g’s co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e. InDecem be r 20 10 , Chu ng fil edth e in st an t pr o s e § 3 58 2( c) m ot io n t o reduc e h is sen te nc e b as edon Gui de li ne Am en dm en t 5 91 . Chu ng arg ue d tha t the ch an ge m ad e b y

Am en dm en t 5 91 requi redth atth e ap pl ic ab le off en se gu id el in e b e 2de te rm in edacco rd in g t o t he off en se of c on vi ct io n ra th er tha n o n ju di ci al fin di ng s of actua l co nduc t. Thu s, h e al le ge d, the di stric t co urt fa il edto sel ectth e co rrec t gu id el in e fo r th e o ffen se of c on vi ct io n. Ch un g c on cl ud edth at , bec au se he was ch al le ng in g t he di st ric t co urt’s g ui de li ne sel ect io n a ndno t i ts de te rm in at io n o f hi s ba se off en se lev el , Am en dm en t 5 91 was app li cab le an d h is sen te nc e sh ou ldbe reduc edto th e 2 0- y ear m an da to ry m ax im um un de r § 8 41 (a) o ffen se s fo r whi chno drug qu an ti ty is al le ge d. The co urt d en ie d C hu ng ’s m ot io n, fi nd in g t ha t Am en dm en t 5 91 was n ot ap pl ic ab le an d t ha t a § 35 82 cla im was n otap pr op ria te foranall eg edvi ol at io n un de r App re ndi v. Ne w Jer se y , 53 0 U.S. 4 66 (20 00 ). Thi s i s C hu ng ’s app eal . W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on whet he r to reduc e a d efen da nt ’s se nt en ce p ur su an t t o 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) forab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. Bro wn , 33 2 F .3d13 41 , 13 43 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ).

“ Und er 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) , a di st ric t co urt h as di sc ret io n t o re du ce the te rm of i m pr is on m en t o f analr eady in carc erat edde fen dantwhen th atde fen da nt was sen te nc edba se d o n asen te nc in g ra ng e th atwas s ub se qu en tl y lo weredby the Sen te nc in g C omm is si on pu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 9 94 (o ).” Uni te d Sta tes v. Br av o , 20 3 F .3d77 8, 7 80 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Bu t § 35 82 (c)( 2) do es no t g ran t the di st ric t co urt juris di ct io n t o re co ns id er al l o rig in al sen te nc in g d et erm in at io ns . Id
. at 7 81 . 3Mo reo ve r, th e d is tri ctco urt m ay no t m od ify an i m

po se d t erm

of i m pr is on m en t up on a § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n u nl es s the de fen da nt ’s sen te nc in g ra ng e was subs eque nt ly lower edby an am en dm en t t o t he Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es . Id
. Am en dm en t 5 91 ad de d l an gu ag e to U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .1(a ) in st ru ct in g t he di st ric t co urt t o “ de te rm in e, pu rs ua ntto § 1 B1 .2 (Ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne s) , th e of fen se gu id el in e se ct io n fr om Ch ap te r Two (Off

en se Co nduc t) app li cab le to th e of fen se of c on vi ct io n.” U.S.S.G. App. C, Am en d. 5 91 . Furth erm or e, Am en dm en t 1 59 1 c ha ng edU.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .2(a ), in st ru ct in g t he sen te nc in g c ou rt t o “ [r]efer t o th e St atut ory

Ind ex (App en di x A) t o d et erm in e th e Ch ap te r Two o ffen se gu id el in e, refe ren cedinth e St atut ory Ind ex forth e o ffen se of c on vi ct io n. . . . Forst atut ory pr ov is io ns no t l is te d i n t he Sta tu to ry Ind ex , us e th e m os t an al og ou s g ui de li ne .” Id
. (am en di ng U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .2(a )). In Uni te d Sta tes v. Mo re no , we exp la in edth at Am en dm en t 5 91 was de si gn edto clarif

y whet he r en ha nc edpe na lt ie s p ro vi de d b y U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.2 (rel at in g t o dru g o ffen se s n ear p ro te ct edlo cat io ns orin vo lv in g und erag e o r pr eg na ntin di vi du al s) ap pl y on ly whe re the of fen se of c on vi ct io n i s re fere nc edto th atgu id el in e, orwhet he r su ch en ha nc edpe na lt ie s ca n b e u se d wh en ev er a d efen da nt ’s rel ev an t, un ch arg edco nduc t i nc lu de s dru g s al es ina pr ot ect edlo cat io n o r drug sa le s i nv ol vi ng a pr ot ect edin di vi du al . Spe ci fic al ly, in ord er fo r th e en ha nc edpe na lt ie s i n § 2D1 .2 t o app ly, th e d efen da ntm us t b e Amendment 591 bec ame e ffe ctive on Nove mber 1, 2000 a nd is retroa ctively

applicable . 1 U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c ); U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 591. 4co nv ic te d o f anoff en se refe ren cedto § 2 D1.2 , rathe r th ansi m pl y ha ve en ga ge d i n c on du ctde sc rib edby tha t g ui de li ne . Uni te d Sta tes v. Mo re no , 42 1 F .3d12 17 , 12 19 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (quo ta ti onan d ci ta ti on om it te d) . Und er Ap pe nd ix A, § 2 D1.1 is th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e se ct io n fo r § 8 41 (a) o ffen se s. U.S.S.G. App . A. Am en dm en t 5 91 , ho wev er, o nl y ap pl ie s t o t he sel ect io n o f th e rel ev an t of fen se gu id el in e, no t the sel ect io n o f a b as e o ffen se lev el withi n t he ap pl ic ab le of fen se gu id el in e. Mor en o , 42 1 F .3dat 1 21 9- 20 . Furt he rm or e, Am en dm en t 5 91 do es no t co ns tra inth e u se of ju di ci al ly foundfact s t o s el ecta ba se off en se lev el withi n t he rel ev an t g ui de li ne . Id
. Here, i n d et erm in in g C hu ng ’s sen te nc e, th e d is tri ctco urt ap pl ie d t he ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e se le ct io n fr om App en di x A, an d thu s, Am en dm en t 5 91 do es no t ap pl y to hi m . Accor di ng ly, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n de nyin g h is § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n. AFFIRMED.

5