FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 18 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 14658 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 9 5 - 0 3 0 3 9 - CR- 3 - RV U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s W E N D E L L L . C R A W F O R D , a .k .a . N U T , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe N or the rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju n e 18, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , D U B IN A an d C A RN E S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

W endel l C raw ford, a f

eder al pri soner procee di ng pro se, appeal s the di stri ct c our t ’ s or de rde ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o m odi f y s e nt e nc e ba s e d upon ar e tr oa c t i ve c ha nge t o the a dvi s ory U ni t e d S t a t e s S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s ( “ the G ui de l i ne s ” ) , 18 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) , b o th a s a n u n au th o r iz e d s e c o n d o rs u c c e s s iv e 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n , a n d , a d d itio n a lly , b e c au s e it w a s o u ts id e th e “s c o p e ” o f § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) . B e c aus e the c ha nge s m a de by A m e ndm e nt591 t o the G ui de l i ne s ha d no i m pa c ton C ra w fo rd ’s se n ten ce in th is ca se , th e d istrict co u rt co rr ec tl y d en ied C ra w fo rd ’s r e q u e s tf o rs e n t e n c i n g r e l i e f

a s o u t s i d e th e “ s c o p e ” o f § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) , a n d we A F F IR M i n p artas t o thatpo rt i on of the di stri ctcourt ’ s order . B ec ause the di stri ct courtnever consi dere d w hether t o i ss ue a C ert i fi ca t e of A pp ea l abi l i ty ( “ C O A ”) as t o the po rt i on of i t s orderdenyi ng C raw ford’ s § 35 82 (c )( 2) as an un autho ri ze d s e c ond ors uc c e s s i ve § 2255 m ot i on, how e ve r , w e R E M A N D i n pa r tf or c ons i de r a t i on of

w hi c h, i f

a ny , i s s ue s m e e tthe C O A s t a nda r d. I . B AC KG RO UN D I n J une 1995, C r a w f

or d w a s i ndi c t e d a l ong w i th s i x othe ri ndi vi dua l s a nd c h a r g e d w ith c o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te c o c a in e b a s e , in vi ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . § 8 46 , and p osse ss i on w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e c ocai ne base , i n vi ol a t i on of

21 U . S . C . § 841( a ) , ( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i i ) , a nd 18 U . S . C . § 2. A j ury f ound hi m gui l ty a s c ha r ge d.3

I n c a l c ul a t i ng C r a w f

or d’ s s e nt e nc i ng r a nge , the pr e s e nt e nc e i nve s t i ga t i on r e p o r t ( “P S I ” ) g r o u p e d C r a w f o r d ’s tw o c o u n ts o f

c o n v ic tio n to g e th e rp u r s u a n t to U . S . S . G . § 3D 1. 2( d) ( 1994) a nd not e d tha tthe ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l f

ora§ 846 o ffen se w as fo u n d i n U . S . S . G . § 2 D 1 . 1 . T h e P S I i n i t i al l y assi g n ed a b ase o ffen se l evel of 38 , w hi ch the di stri ctcourtl at erre du ce d t o 3 6 u nd er§ 2 D 1. 1(c) (4) bas ed o n th e c o u r t’s f

in d in g th a t th e o f

f e n s e in v o lv e d b e tw e e n 5 0 0 g r a m s a n d 1 .5 ki l og ra m s of c ocai ne base . A ft erappl yi ng 2-l evel enhancem ent s f or a c o- c ons pi r a t or ’ s pos s e s s i on of af i r e a rm , pur s ua ntt o § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) , a nd ob struct i on of j ust i ce , pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 3 C 1. 2, the courtfoun d thatC raw ford ha d at ot a l of

f e ns e l e ve l of

40 a nd ac r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory of I , r e s ul t i ng i n a gu i del i ne se nt enci ng rang e of 292 t o 3 65 m on ths of i m pri sonm ent . T he court se nt ence d C raw ford t o 2 92 m on ths of i m pri sonm ent , and w e a ff i rm ed on di re ct appe a l . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S t a l l w or th, N o. 95- 3533, 121 F . 3d 721 ( 11th C i r . J ul y 22, 19 97 ) ( un pu bl i shed). I n 1998, C r a w f

or d f i l e d a28 U . S . C . § 2255 m ot i on t o va c a t e , s e ta s i de , or c orr e c ts e nt e nc e , w hi c h the di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d. B oth the di s tr i c tc our ta nd our c o u r td e n i e d aC OA . A ft erthe concl usi on of hi s § 22 55 proceedi ng s, C raw ford a l s o f i l e d ( 1) a n appl i c a t i on f orl e a ve t o f

i l e as e c ond ors uc c e s s i ve § 2255 m ot i on,4

w hi ch w e deni ed; and (2) a m ot i on for anew se nt enci ng hear i ng , w hi ch the di stri ct c our tde ni e d. C r a w f or d the n f

i l e d apr o s e m ot i on t o m odi f y hi s s e nt e nc e ba s e d upon a r e tr o a c tiv e a m e n d m e n t to th e G u id e lin e s , p u r s u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) . C raw ford st at ed thatre troac t i ve appl i ca t i on of A m endm ent59 1 t o the G ui del i nes w o u ld r e s u lt in th e r e d u c tio n o f h is s e n te n c e b e c au s e , u n d e rth a t a m e n d m e n t, a di s tr i c tc our tm us tba s e i t s s e l e c t i on of the appl i c abl e of

f e ns e gui de l i ne onl y on the char ged o ff

ense , no tsi m pl y afi nd i ng thatthe defendanthad eng aged i n con du ct covered by thatgu i del i ne. C raw ford then ass ert ed thatthe di stri ctcourtvi ol at ed h is C o n f r o n ta tio n C lau s e r ig h ts b y e n h a n c in g h is s e n te n c e b a s e d o n u n r e liab le hear say e vi dence re gardi ng drug qu ant i ty and a c o-conspi ra t or’ s posse ss i on of a f i r e a rm . C r a w f

or d a r gue d tha t , “ [ b] e c aus e the s c ope of c onduc tf

orw hi c h a d e f e n d a n t c a n b e h e ld a c c o u n tab le u n d e rth e s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e s is s ig n if ic a n tly narr ow erthan the cond uctem brac ed by the l aw of C on spi ra cy , ” di stri ctcourt s m ay not“ w i thoutf

ur the rf i ndi ngs s i m pl y s e nt e nc e ade f e nda nta c c or di ng t o the a m ount of narcot i cs i nv ol ved i n the conspi ra cy . ” R 35 2 at7. C raw ford then ass ert ed that ( 1) the gove rnm e ntf

a i l e d t o pr ove di s put e d s e nt e nc i ng f a c t s by apr e ponde r a nc e of th e e v id e n c e ; ( 2 ) th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s e n te n c e d h im b a s e d o n th e to ta l d ru g q u a n tity i nvol ve d i n the c ons pi r a c y w i thoutpr ope r l y c ons i de r i ng hi s l e s s e rr ol e i n the5

conspi ra cy ; (3) he s ho ul d h ave r ec ei ved a four-l evel m i no r- rol e r educt i on un der U . S . S . G . § 3 B 1. 2; and (4) he shou l d n othave rec ei ved a tw o-l evel fi re arm e nha nc e m e ntunde rU . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1( b) be c aus e hi s c o- c ons pi r a t or ’ s pos s e s s i on of aw e apon w a s not“ r e a s onabl y f or e s e e abl e . ” I d. a t8- 11. C r a w f or d thus concl ud ed thathi s t ot al offe nse l evel shou l d b e 30, and thatthe di stri ctcourthad th e d is c r e tio n u n d e r§ 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) to v a c a te h is s e n te n c e a n d r e s e n te n c e h im w ith in ag u id e lin e r a n g e o f

9 7 to 1 2 1 m o n th s o f

im p r is o n m e n t. W i tho utre qu i ri ng the go vernm entt o res po nd , the di stri ctcourtdeni ed C raw ford’ s § 35 82 (c )( 2) m ot i on “ for l ac k o f j uri sdi ct i on because the m ot i on i s an a tt e mp tt o f

i l e as e c o n d Se c t i o n 2 2 5 5 p e t i t i o n , w i th o u tCi r c u i tau th o r i z a t i o n . ” R353. T he c our tf

ur the rs t a t e d tha tC r a w f or d’ s m ot i on w a s “ [ a ] l s o D E N I E D on the m e r its b e c au s e it is n o t w ith in th e s c o p e o f S e c tio n 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) .” I d . C r a w f or d f i l e d at i m e l y not i c e of

appe a l , w hi c h the di s tr i c tc our tdi d not c o n s tru e a s am o tio n f

o raC O A . C r a w f

o r d th e n m o v e d in o u rc o u r t f o rle a v e to pr oc e e d on appe a l i n f

orm apaupe r i s ( “ I F P ” ) . W e gr a nt e d C r a w f or d’ s m ot i on f

or l e a v e t o p r o c e e d o n ap p e a l I FP. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . T h e R e q u i r e m e n t of a C O A i n t h i s A p p e al6

A s a n in itia l m a tte r , it ap p e a r s th a t a t le a s t ap o r tio n o f C r a w f o r d ’s ap p e a l is n o tp ro p erl y b efo re u s. A s n o t ed ab o v e, th e d i stri ctco u rtd en i ed C raw fo rd ’ s § 35 82 (c )( 2) m ot i on on tw o g roun ds: (1) f or l ac k o f j uri sdi ct i on because i tw as an u n au th o r iz e d s e c o n d o rs u c c e s s iv e § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n , a n d ( 2 ) o n th e m e r its b e c au s e it w as no tw i thi n the “ sc op e” of § 3 58 2(c) (2). R -353 . T o the ext entthatthe di stri ct c our tde ni e d C r a w f

or d’ s m ot i on on the gr ound tha ti tw a s notw i thi n the “ s c ope ” of § 3582( c ) ( 2) , tha tpor t i on of the j udgm e ntw oul d be appe a l abl e a s af i na l or de rof th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. S e e 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . T o the ext entthe di stri ctcourtdeni ed re l i ef on the grou nd thatthe § 3582( c ) ( 2) m ot i on w a s , i n s ubs t a nc e , as e c ond ors uc c e s s i ve § 2255 m ot i on, how e ve r , C r a w f

or d m us tr e c e i ve aC O A t o appe a l tha tpor t i on of the or de r . S e e 28 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 3 (c)(1 ) (p ro v i d i n g th at“ u n l ess a ci rcu i tj u st i ce o r j u d g e i ssu es a c e r tif ic a te o f ap p e a lab ility , a n ap p e a l m a y n o t b e ta k e n to th e c o u r t o f ap p e a ls f r om — ( A ) the f

i na l or de ri n ahabe a s c orpus pr oc e e di ng i n w hi c h the de t e nt i on c o m p la in e d o f

a r is e s o u t o f

p r o c e s s is s u e d b y aS ta te c o u r t; o r( B ) th e f in a l o r d e rin a procee di ng un der s ec t i on 22 55 ”) . B ec ause C raw ford’ s § 35 82 (c )( 2) m ot i on , at l e a s ti n pa r t , c ha l l e nge d the c ons t i tut i ona l i ty of hi s s e nt e nc e unde rthe C o n fro n t at i o n C l au se, th e d i stri ctco u rtco rrect l y co n stru ed th e fi l i n g as a s u c c e s s iv e § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n . S e e M e a n s v . A lab a m a , 2 0 9 F .3 d 1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 2 ( 1 1 th7

C i r . 2000) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) ( not i ng tha tf e de r a l c our t s m us tl ook beyond the l abel s of m ot i on s f i l ed by pro se i nm at es t o i nt erpretthem un der w ha t e ve rs t a tut e w oul d pr ovi de r e l i e f ) ; 28 U . S . C . § 2255 ( pr ovi di ng the e xc l us i ve s t a tut ory ve hi c l e f

oraf e de r a l pr i s one rt o c l a i m “ the r i ghtt o be r e l e a s e d upon the gr ound tha tthe s e nt e nc e w a s i m pos e d i n vi ol a t i on of the C ons t i tut i on orl a w s of the U ni t ed S t at es , or thatthe courtw as w i tho utj uri sdi ct i on t o i m po se such s e nt e nc e ” ) . A s s uc h, C r a w f or d w oul d ne e d aC O A t o pr oc e e d a s t o tha tpor t i on of h is ap p e a l. A s not ed abov e, C raw ford prop er l y f i l ed a not i ce of appeal fr om the deni al of hi s § 3582( c ) ( 2) m ot i on, butthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d notc ons true the not i c e of ap p e a l a s am o tio n f

o rC O A , a n d , th u s , n e v e rc o n s id e r e d w h e th e rto is s u e aC O A . W e w i l l no tm ake the i ni t i al det erm i nat i on of w hether t o i ss ue a C O A ; the di stri ct courtm ustrul e f

i rs t . E dw ar ds v. U ni t ed S t at es , 11 4 F . 3d 10 83 , 10 84 (11th C i r. 19 97 ) ( per c uri am ). A cc ordi ng l y, w e ordera l i m i t ed re m and i n p artfor the di stri ct c o u r tt o c o n s i d e rwh i c h i s s u e s , i f a n y , m e e tth e s t a n d a r d f o ri s s u a n c e o f

aC OA , p u r s u a n t to E d w a r d s . B ecau se th e p o rt i o n o f th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s o rd er d en yi n g C raw fo rd ’ s § 35 82 (c )( 2) m ot i on as ou t si de the “ sc op e” of § 3 58 2 i s properl y bef ore us a s an ap p e a l u n d e r§ 1 2 9 1 , a n d b e c au s e th e p a r tie s a lr e a d y h a v e s u b m itte d th e irap p e lla te8

br i e f s , i n the i nt e r e s tof

j udi c i a l e c onom y w e w i l l a ddr e s s C r a w f or d’ s appe a l f

r om tha tpor t i on of

the j udgm e ntw i thoutw a i t i ng f orthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s rul i ng on a C O A o n th e o th e rp o r tio n o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ju d g m e n t. B . T h e M e r i t s of

C r aw f or d ’ s § 3582( c ) ( 2) A p p e al O n ap p e a l, C r a w f

o r d r e a s s e r ts e s s e n tia lly v e rb a tim th e a r g u m e n ts h e in itia lly r a i s e d i n hi s § 3582( c ) ( 2) m ot i on. A ga i n, C r a w f or d c ont e nds tha tA m e ndm e nt591 w o u l d resu l ti n th e red u ct i o n o f h i s sen t en ce b ecau se th e sel ect i o n o f th e o ffen se gui de l i ne m us tbe ba s e d onl y on the of f e ns e of c onvi c t i on, notaf

i ndi ng tha tthe de f e nda nt ’ s c onduc tf

e l l w i thi n apa r t i c ul argui de l i ne . C r a w f or d a r gue s tha tthe di stri ctcourtvi ol at ed hi s C on fr on t at i on C l ause ri gh t s by e nh anci ng hi s s ent ence b a s e d o n u n r e liab le h e a r s a y te s tim o n y r e g a r d in g th e to ta l d ru g q u a n tity in v o lv e d in th e c o n s p i r a c y a n d ac o - c o n s p i r a t o r ’ s p o s s e s s i o n o f af i r e a rm. C r a w f

or d c ont e nds tha tr e l e va ntc onduc tunde rthe G ui de l i ne s i s ana rr ow e rc onc e pttha n the “ l a w of C on spi ra cy , ” and thatthe di stri ctcourtm ustm ake a dd i t i on al fi nd i ng s bef ore h o ld in g ad e f

e n d a n t a c c o u n tab le f

o rth e to ta l a m o u n t o f

d ru g s in ac o n s p ir a c y . A pp el l ant ’ s B r. at11 . A s bef ore, C raw ford ar gu es that(1) the go vernm entfa i l ed t o pr ove di s put e d s e nt e nc i ng f a c t s by apr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e ; ( 2) the di s tr i c tc our ts e nt e nc e d hi m ba s e d on the t ot a l drug qua nt i ty i nvol ve d i n the conspi ra cyw i tho utprop er l y w ei gh i ng hi s l es se r r ol e i n the offens e; (3) he des erved9

af our - l e ve l m i nor - r ol e r e duc t i on unde rU . S . S . G . § 3B 1. 2; a nd ( 4) hi s § 2D 1. 1( b) fi re arm enhancem entw as i m prop erbecause hi s c o-conspi ra t or’ s posse ss i on of a w eapo n w as no t“ re as on abl y f ores ee abl e. ” I d. at11 -17. C raw ford agai n con cl ud es tha thi s t ot a l of

f e ns e l e ve l s houl d be 30, a nd tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tha d the di s c r e t i on unde r§ 3582( c ) ( 2) t o va c a t e hi s s e nt e nc e a nd r e s e nt e nc e hi m w i thi n a g u id e lin e r a n g e o f

9 7 to 1 2 1 m o n th s o f

im p r is o n m e n t. I n h is r e p ly b r ie f

, C r a w f o r d a ls o a r g u e s ( f

o rth e f ir s t tim e ) th a t w e s h o u ld consi der w hether U ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . 22 0, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8 (20 05 ), ap p lie s to § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) m o tio n s . C r a w f o r d a c k n o w le d g e s o u rc o n tr a ry h o ld in g in U n ite d S ta te s v . M o r e n o , 4 2 1 F .3 d 1 2 1 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) , c e r t. deni ed, 12 6 S . C t . 16 43 (200 6), bu tas se rt s that“ [s ] om e c i rc ui t s ha[ ve] hel d that [ B o o k e r ] d o e s [ ap p ly to § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) m o tio n s ].” A p p e lla n t’s R e p ly B r . a t 1 . C r a w f or d the n br i e f

l y r e i t e r a t e s hi s c l a i m tha tA m e ndm e nt591 pr ohi bi t e d the d i stri ctco u rtfro m co n si d eri n g h i s rel ev an tco n d u cti n sett i n g h i s b ase o ffen se le v e l. W e r e v ie w f

o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n ad is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n w h e th e rto r e duc e as e nt e nc e pur s ua ntt o 18 U . S . C . § 3582( c ) ( 2) . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. V aut i er , 14 4 F . 3d 75 6, 75 9 n . 3 (11 th C i r. 19 98 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed).10

U nde r18 U . S . C . § 3582( c ) ( 2) , adi s tr i c tc our tha s di s c r e t i on t o r e duc e the term o f im p riso n m en t o f a n alre ad y in ca rc er ated d ef en d an t w h en th at d ef

en d an t’ s s e nt e nc e w a s ba s e d upon as e nt e nc i ng r a nge tha tha s be e n s ubs e que nt l y l ow e r e d by the C om m i s s i on pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 994( o) . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B r a vo, 203 F . 3d 7 7 8 , 7 8 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . B e f o r e g r a n tin g as e n te n c e m o d if ic a tio n , h o w e v e r , a di stri ctcourtm ustconsi der the fa ct ors s etforth i n § 35 53 (a ) t o the ext entthatthey a r e appl i c abl e , a nd e va l ua t e w he the rs uc h ar e duc t i on i s “ c ons i s t e ntw i th the ap p l i c ab l e p o l i c y s t a t e me n t s i s s u e d b y th e Se n t e n c i n g Co mmi s s i o n . ” 1 8 U . S. C. § 3582( c ) ( 2) . S e c t i on 3553( a ) pr ovi de s tha tthe c our tm us te va l ua t e , i nt e ra l i a , the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of the of f e ns e , the hi s t ory a nd c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s of the de f e nda nt , a nd the ne e d f

orthe s e nt e nc e i m pos e d. 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) . T hus , the l aw perm i t s, bu tdo es no tre qu i re , a di stri ctcourtt o res ent ence a def endantun der § 35 82 (c )( 2). U ni t ed S t at es v. B row n, 10 4 F . 3d 12 54 , 12 55 (11th C i r. 19 97 ) ( per curi am ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). M oreover, on l y a m endm ent s l i st ed i n § 1B 1. 10 (c ) m ay be appl i ed re troac t i vel y usi ng a § 35 82 (c )( 2) m ot i on . U . S . S . G . § 1 B 1. 10 (a ); U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P e l a e z , 196 F . 3d 1203, 1205 n. 3 ( 11th C i r . 1999) . A m e ndm e nt 59 1 i s one of the am endm ent s l i st ed i n § 1B 1. 10 (c ). U . S . S . G . § 1 B 1. 10 (c ); M o r e n o , 4 2 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 1 9 .11

W e d o n o t r e q u ir e ad is tr ic t c o u r t to m a k e s p e c if ic f in d in g s e x p la in in g its de c i s i on nott o r e s e nt e nc e ade f e nda nt , s o l ong a s the c our tc l e a r l yc ons i de r e d the fa ct ors l i st ed i n § 35 53 (a ) and se tforth adequ at e r ea sons for i t s r ef usal t o m od i fy the or i gi na l s e nt e nc e . B r ow n, 104 F . 3d a t1255. M or e ove r , as e nt e nc i ng a dj us tm e ntunde r t a ke n pur s ua ntt o § 3582( c ) ( 2) doe s notc ons t i tut e ade novo r e s e nt e nc i ng. B r a vo, 203 F . 3d a t781 ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . A l l or i gi na l s e nt e nc i ng det erm i nat i on s r em ai n u nchang ed w i th the except i on of the gu i del i ne ra ng e that has bee n am ended si nce the ori gi nal se nt enci ng . Id. (c i t at i on om i tt ed). A m e ndm e nt591 t o the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s a m e nde d the l a ngua ge of s e ve r a l s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s t o a ddr e s s “ ac i r c ui tc onf l i c tr e ga r di ng w he the rthe e nha nc e d pe na l t i e s i n U . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 2 . . . appl [ i e d] onl y i n ac a s e i n w hi c h the d efen d an tw as co n v i ct ed o f an o ffen se referen ced t o th atg u i d el i n e o r, al t ern at i v el y, i n a nyc a s e i n w hi c h the de f e nda nt ’ s r e l e va ntc onduc ti nc l ude d drug s a l e s i n a pr ot e c t e d l oc a t i on ori nvol vi ng apr ot e c t e d i ndi vi dua l . ” U . S . S . G . A pp. C , a m e nd. 591 a t“ R e a s on f

orA m e ndm e nt ” ( N ov. 2000) . B y i t s e xpl i c i tt e rm s , A m e ndm e nt 5 9 1 si m p l y cl ari fi ed th at , “ i n o rd er fo r th e en h an ced p en al t i es i n § 2 D 1 . 2 t o ap p l y, the de f e nda ntm us t[ ha ve be e n] c onvi c t e d of an of f e ns e r e f e r e nc e d t o §2D 1. 2, r a th e rth a n s im p ly h a v e e n g a g e d in c o n d u c t d e s c r ib e d b y th a t g u id e lin e .” I d . S ec t i on 2D 1. 2(a) (1) provi des hei gh t ened base off ense l evel s f

or drug offe nses12

in v o lv in g a“p r o te c te d lo c a tio n o ra n u n d e r a g e o rp r e g n a n t in d iv id u a l.” O n ly defe nd ant s c on vi ct ed of offense s und er21 U . S . C . §§ 85 9, 86 0, and 8 61 ar e s ubj ec t t o the enhanced penal t i es of § 2 D 1. 2. U . S . S . G . § 2 D 1. 2, com m ent . (S t atut ory P r o v is io n s ) . In M oreno, the defendantsoug hta s ent ence re du ct i on un der § 35 82 (c )( 2), arg u i n g th atA m en d m en t5 9 1 p ro h i b i t ed th e d i stri ctco u rtfro m sel ect i n g a b ase of f e ns e l e ve l of

38 w i thi n § 2D 1. 1 be c aus e tha tl e ve l w a s notba s e d s ol e l y on the ju ry v e r d ic t in h is c a s e , w h ic h d id n o t r e f e r e n c e ad ru g q u a n tity . 4 2 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 1 9 . W e not e d tha t“ A m e ndm e nt591 di r e c t s the di s tr i c tc our tt o appl y the gui de l i ne d ic ta te d b y th e s ta tu te o f c o n v ic tio n , b u t d o e s n o t c o n s tr a in th e u s e o f ju d ic ia lly foun d fac t s t o sel ec ta bas e off ense l evel w i thi n the re l evantgu i del i ne. ” I d. at 1 2 1 9 - 2 0 ( c i t a t i o n o m i tt e d ) . We o b s e rv e d th a tMo r e n o ’ s a r g u m e n tc o n f u s e d two di s t i nc ts t e ps : ( 1) the s e l e c t i on of the appl i c abl e of

f e ns e gui de l i ne , a nd ( 2) the se l ec t i on of the base offe nse l evel w i thi n the re l evantoffe nse gui del i ne. Id. at 1 2 2 0 . W e th e n a g r e e d w ith tw o o th e rc ir c u its in h o ld in g th a t A m e n d m e n t 5 9 1 o n ly appl i e s t o the s e l e c t i on of the r e l e va ntof

f e ns e gui de l i ne , notthe s e l e c t i on of the s pe c i f i c ba s e of

f e ns e l e ve l w i thi n the appl i c abl e of f e ns e gui de l i ne . I d. ( c i t a t i ons o m itte d ) . T h u s , w e c o n c lu d e d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g M o r e n o ’s § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) m o tio n . I d .13

H er e, the di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y f ou nd thatC raw ford’ s r equestfor a se nt ence re du ct i on pu rs uantt o A m endm ent59 1 fel l ou t si de the “ sc op e” of § 35 82 (c )( 2). S ee R -353 . B y i t s e xp re ss t erm s, A m endm ent59 1 o nl y c l ar i fi ed that the enhanced base off

ense l evel s i n § 2D 1. 2 app l y onl y t o d ef endant s c on vi ct ed un der 21 U . S . C . §§ 85 9, 86 0, and 8 61 . S ee U . S . S . G . § 2 D 1. 2, com m ent . (S t atut ory P r ovi s i ons ) . C r a w f

or d w a s c onvi c t e d unde r21 U . S . C . §§ 846, 841( a ) , a nd 18 U . S . C . § 2 , w h i ch are n o ten u m erat ed o ffen ses su b j ectt o th e en h an ced b ase o ffen se l e ve l s of § 2D 1. 2. S e e i d. A s s uc h, the c ha nge s m a de by A m e ndm e nt591 ha d no i m pacton C raw ford’ s s ent ence i n thi s c as e. S i m i l a r l y , t o the e xt e nttha tC r a w f or d c ont e nde d tha tA m e ndm e nt591 p r o h ib ite d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f r o m s e ttin g h is b a s e o f

f e n s e le v e l w ith in § 2 D 1 .1 ba s e d on f

a c t s notf ound by the j ury , tha ta r gum e nti s di r e c t l y f or e c l os e d by our d ec isio n in M o re n o . S ee M o re n o , 4 2 1 F .3 d at 1 2 2 0 . M o re o v er , C ra w fo rd ’s va r i ous othe rs e nt e nc i ng ar gum e nt s — tha t( 1) the gove rnm e ntf a i l e d t o pr ove di sput ed se nt enci ng fa ct s by aprepon dera nce of the evi dence; (2) the di stri ctcourt di d notpr ope r l y w e i gh hi s r ol e i n the c ons pi r a c y be f or e s e nt e nc i ng hi m ba s e d on the t ot a l drug qua nt i ty i nvol ve d i n the c ons pi r a c y ; ( 3) he s houl d ha ve r e c e i ve d a m i t i g at i n g -ro l e red u ct i o n ; an d (4 ) th e fi rearm en h an cem en tw as i m p ro p er b ecau se th e c o - c o n s p ir a to r ’s p o s s e s s io n o f aw e ap o n w a s n o t “r e a s o n ab ly14

fore se eabl e”

— ar e notbase d o n any re troac t i ve gu i del i ne am endm ent , and, thu s, ar e notpr ope r l y r a i s e d i n a§ 3582( c ) ( 2) m ot i on. S e e 18 U . S . C . § 3582( c ) ( 2) ; 28 U .S .C . § 9 9 4 ( o ) ; B r a v o , 2 0 3 F .3 d a t 7 8 0 - 8 1 . F i n al l y, C raw fo rd ’ s arg u m en tth atB o o k er ap p l i es t o § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2 ) m o t i o n s, ra i se d for the fi rs tt i m e i n h i s r epl y bri ef , i s notprop er l y pre se nt ed t o u s. S ee U n i t e d St a t e s v . Br i tt , 4 3 7 F. 3 d 1 1 0 3 , 1 1 0 4 - 0 5 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) ( h o ld in g th a t aB o o k e rc la im c a n n o t b e r a is e d f o rth e f ir s t tim e in ar e p ly b r ie f ) . E v e n if C r a w f o r d ’s B o o k e ra r g u m e n t w a s p r o p e r ly r a is e d o n ap p e a l, h o w e v e r , it w o u ld b e w ith o u t m e r it. I n M o r e n o , w e a d d itio n a lly h e ld th a t B o o k e ris in ap p lic ab le to § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) m o tio n s b e c au s e it is aS u p r e m e C o u r t d e c is io n , n o t a r e tr oa c t i ve l y appl i c abl e gui de l i ne a m e ndm e ntpr om ul ga t e d by the S e nt e nc i ng C om m i ss i on . M oreno, 42 1 F . 3d at12 20 . A cc ordi ng l y, B oo ker does notprov i de a j uri sdi ct i on al basi s t o m od i fyand reduce C raw ford’ s s ent ence un der § 35 82 (c )( 2). I I I . CONCL US I ON B a s e d o n th e f

o r e g o i n g , we AF F I R M i n p a r t , a n d o r d e ral i m i t e d R E MAND i n pa r tf orthe di s tr i c tc our tt o c ons i de rw hi c h i s s ue s , i f a ny , m e e tthe s t a nda r d f or is s u a n c e o f

aC O A . A FFI R M ED I N PA R T, LI M I TED R EM A N D I N PA R T.