[DO N OT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 10 79 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 5 :0 4- cr-0 00 42 -WT H-GRJ -1

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 SAMUEL HILL,
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 ur t for th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st 20 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, MARCUS an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:
Sam ue l Hil l, a fed eral pr is on er co nv ic te d of co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e a n d to Case: 12-10798 Date Filed: 08/20/2012 Page: 1 of 8po ss es s wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e 50 gr am s or m or e of crac k co cai ne , in vi ol at io n of 21

U.S.C. §§ 84 6, 84 1( a)(1 ) an d (b )(1 )(A); an d di st rib ut io n of crac k co cai ne , in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ) an d (b )(1 )(C) , ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of hi s 20 11

m ot io n fo r a s en te nc e red uc ti on , pu rs ua nt to 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ). W he n h e was

or ig in a l l y se nt en ced in 20 05 , Hil l’s gu id el in e ran ge was 29 2 to 36 5 m on th s’
im pr is on m en t, ba se d on an of fen se le ve l of 38 , bu t th e di st ric t co ur t va rie d do wnwar d

an d se nt en ced hi m to 2 co nc ur ren t te rm s of 24 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t -- th e st at ut or y

m ax im um sen te nc e fo r th e co ns pi racy offen se
. In 20 11 , Hil l m ov ed th e d i s t r i c t co ur t -- ba se d on Am en dm en t 75 0, whi ch

am en de d U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1 by rev i s in g th e dr ug qu an ti ty ta bl e to red uc e of fen se le ve ls fo r va rio us am ou nt s of crac k co cai ne -- to r e - s e n t e n ce hi m ba se d on a ne w of fen se le ve l of 36 , bu t he di d no t sp eci fic al ly ur ge th e di st ric t co ur t to se nt en ce hi m be lo w h i s a m en de d gu id el in e ran ge
. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d Hil l’s § 35 82 (c)( 2)

m ot io n, fin di ng th at he was en ti tl ed to a 2- le ve l red uc ti on un de r Am en dm en t 75 0, whi ch res ul te d in an am en de d gu id el in e ran ge of 23 5 to 29 3 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t,

an d e nt ered an ord er re du ci ng Hil l’s s en te nc e fro m 24 0 t o 2 35 m on th s. On ap pe al , Hil l arg ue s th at Am en dm en t 75 9 -- whi ch am en de d U.S.S.G. §
1B 1.1 0( b) (2 )(B) to pr ov id e th at a di st ric t co ur t m ay lo w e r a de fen da nt 's se nt en ce be lo w th e am en de d gu id el in es ran ge on ly if th e or ig in al se nt en ce was be lo w th e

2 Case: 12-10798 Date Filed: 08/20/2012 Page: 2 of 8or ig in al gu id el in es ran ge be cau se th e de fen da nt pr ov id ed su bs ta nt ia l as si st an ce to th e

go ve rn m en t -- is in va li d b e c a u s e : (1 ) Am en dm en t 75 9 vi ol at es th e Ex Po st Fact o Cl au se si nc e th e n ew ve rs io n of § 1B 1.1 0 “ pu rp or ts to el im in at e” hi s “ pr ev io us ly
gr an te d va ria nc e”; (2 ) th e no ti ce an d co m m en t pr oc ed ur e was de fect iv e un de r th e Adm in is tra ti ve Pro ced ur es Act; (3 ) Am en dm en t 75 9 ex ceed s th e Se n t e n c i ng Co m m is si on ’s au th or it y un de r 28 U.S.C. § 99 4( u) , si nc e § 99 4( u) do es no t al lo w th e Co m m is si on to ov erri de ot he r se nt en ci ng de ci si on s m ad e at th e or ig in al se nt en ci ng ; (4 ) al lo win g th e Co m

m is si on to ov erri de pr ev io us ly m ad e, cas e-s pe ci fic , se nt en ci ng de ci si on s wou ld vi ol at e th e pr in ci pl e of Sep arat io n of Po wers ; an d (5 ) th e ne wly

am en de d § 1B 1.1 0 i s ambig uo us , so th e ru le of l en it y m il it at es in fav or of all owi ng th e di st ric t co ur t to m ai nt ai n al l of it s or ig in a l se nt en ci ng de ci si on s. Afte r care fu l

rev ie w, we affi rm
. W e no rm al ly rev ie w de no vo a di st ric t co ur t’s de te rm in at io n of th e sc op e of it s

a u t ho rit y to red uc e a de fen da nt ’s se nt en ce un de r 18 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2)

. U n i t e d
St at es v. J a mes , 5 4 8 F.3 d 98 3, 98 4 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 08 ). Howev er, whe n a de fen da nt fai ls to rai se an arg um en t be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t, we rev ie w o n l y fo r pl ai n erro r. Uni te d St at es v. Sp oe rk e, 56 8 F.3 d 12 36 , 12 44 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 09 ). “ Pl ai n erro r oc cu rs whe re (1 ) th ere is an erro r; (2 ) th at is pl ai n or ob vi ou s; (3 ) affe ct in g th e de fen da nt ’s

su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s in th at it was pr ejud ic ia l an d n o t h a r ml e s s; an d (4 ) th at se rio us ly

3 Case: 12-10798 Date Filed: 08/20/2012 Page: 3 of 8affe ct s th e fai rn es s, in te gr it y or pu bl ic rep ut at io n of th e jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs .” Id

. at

12 44 -4 5 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. In or de r fo r an erro r to be ob vi ou s fo r pu rp os es of pl ai n

erro r rev i e w , “ it m

us t be pl ai n un de r co nt ro ll in g pr eced en t or in vi ew of th e

un eq ui vo cal ly cl ear wor ds of a st at ut e or ru le .” Uni te d St at es v. Lett , 48 3 F.3 d 78 2,
79 0 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 07 ). Bec au se Hil l di d no t req ue st in a t i m el y m ot io n be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t a se nt en ce red uc ti on be lo w hi s am en de d gu id el in e ran ge , an d fai le d to rai se in th e d i s t r i c t co ur t an y of th e is su es he no w rai se s on ap pe al , we rev ie w hi s
arg um en ts on ap pe al on ly for p la in erro r. Spo erk e, 56 8 F .3d at 1 24 4. Alt ho ug h a di st ric t co ur t ge ne ral ly can no t m od ify a te rm of im pr is on m en t on ce it ha s b een im

po se d, an ex cep ti on li es in § 3 58 2( c)(2 ), whe re: in th e cas e o f a de fen da nt who ha s be en se nt en ced to a te rm of i mp r i so nm en t ba se d on a se nt en ci ng ran ge th at ha s su bs eq ue nt ly b e e n lo wered by th e Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 99 4( o)

. . . th e co ur t m ay red uc e th e te rm of im pr is on m en t, aft er co ns id eri ng th e f act or s se t fo rth in [1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)] to th e ex te nt th at th ey a r e ap p l i c a b le , if su ch a red uc ti on is co ns is te nt wit h ap pl ic ab le po li cy st at em en ts is su ed by the Sen te nc in g C om m is si on
. 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ); s ee al so Uni te d S ta te s v . Phi ll ip s, 5 97 F.3 d 1 19 0, 1 19 4- 95 , n.1 0 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ). A pr oc eed in g un de r § 35 82 (c)( 2) an d U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 0 do es

no t co ns ti tu te a fu ll res en te nc in g, an d th e di st ric t co ur t m us t m ai nt ai n al l or ig in al

se nt en ci ng de te rm in at io ns wit h th e so le ex cep ti on of ap pl y in g th e rel ev an t am en de d
gu id el in e ran ge . Uni te d S ta te s v . Brav o, 2 03 F.3d 77 8, 7 80 -8 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0)

.
4 Case: 12-10798 Date Filed: 08/20/2012 Page: 4 of 8A di st ric t co ur t m us t en ga ge in a two -p art an al y si s whe n co ns id eri ng a § 35 82

m ot io n fo r a se nt en ce red uc ti on
. Id

. at 78 0. Fi rs t, th e co ur t m us t rec al cu la te th e

se nt en ce us in g th e am en de d gu id el in e, whi le m ai nt ai ni ng al l o t h e r gu id el in e
ap pl ic at io n de ci si on s, to de te rm in e th e ne w ap pl ic ab le of fen se le ve l an d gu id el in e

ran ge
. Id

. Seco nd , th e c o u r t m us t ap pl y it s di sc ret io n to de te rm in e whe th er it wil l
im po se th e ne wly cal cu la te d s e n t e nc e un de r th e am en de d gu id el in e or ret ai n th e

or ig in al sen te nc e, ba se d o n t he fact or s i n 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). Id . at 7 81

. Am en dm en t 75 0 to th e Sen te nc in g G u i de li ne s rev is ed th e crac k co cai ne
qu an ti ty ta bl es li st ed in U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1(c ), pu rs ua nt to th e Fai r Sen te nc in g Act of
20 10

. See U.S.S.G. App

. C, Am en d. 75 0, Rea so n fo r Am en d. an d U.S.S.G. App

. C,
Am en d. 75 9. As a res ul t of th es e am en dm en ts , § 2D1 .1(c ) no w as si gn s a ba se of fen se le ve l of 36 in cas es in vo lv in g at le as t 2

. 8 ki lo gr am s bu t le ss th an 8.4 ki lo gr am s of

co cai ne ba se
. U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1(c ) (2 01 1)

. Prev io us ly, § 2D1 .1(c ) as si gn ed a ba se

o f f e n s e l e ve l of 38 in cas es in vo lv in g at le as t 1.5 ki lo gr am s of co cai ne ba se
. See,
e.g ., U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1(c ) (2 00 0)

. Am en dm en t 75 9 al so mo d ifi ed th e li m it at io ns on th e au th or it y of a di st ric t

co urt, co ns id eri ng a § 35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n, so m et im es to re -a ppl y dow nw ar d de pa

rt ur es

or va ria nc es pr ev io us ly al lo wed be lo w th e m in im um gu id el in e ran ge
. U.S.S.G. App

. C, Am en d. 75 9; U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 0( b) (2 ) (2 01 1)

. Und er th e rev is ed § 1B 1.1 0( b) (2 ),

5 Case: 12-10798 Date Filed: 08/20/2012 Page: 5 of 8th e di st ric t co ur t “ sh al l no t red uc e th e de fen da nt ’s te rm of im pr is on m en t

. . . to a te rm th at is le ss th an th e m in im um o f t h e a mend ed gu id el in e ran ge .” U.S.S.G. §
1B 1.1 0( b) (2 )(A) (2 01 1)

. The on ly ex cep ti on pr ov id ed un de r th e rev is ed gu id el in e is fo r cas es whe re th e te rm of im pr is on m en t fel l be lo w t h e gu id el in e ran ge du e to a
go ve rn m en t m ot io n ba se d on th e de fen da nt ’s su bs ta nt ia l as si st an ce to au th or it ie s. Id

. § 1 B1 .10 (b )(2 )(B) ; Un it ed Sta te s v . Vaut ie r, 14 4 F .3d 75 6, 7 58 (19 98 ). The di st ric t cou rt is req ui red to ap pl y th e ve rs io n of § 1B 1.1 0 th at is in effe ct
at th e ti m e th at it ru le s on th e § 35 82 m ot io n. U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 0 co mm e n t

. ( n
. 6) (2 01 1)

. Am en dm en t 75 9 mad e c h a n g es to § 1B 1.1 0, whi ch be cam e effe ct iv e on Nov em be r 1, 20 11 , an d wou ld ap pl y to an y § 35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n de ci de d on or aft er th at da te . U.S.S.G. A pp . C, Am en d. 7 59

. On th e reco rd he re, Hil l ha s fai le d to sh ow th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d an y

erro r, m uc h le ss pl ai n erro r, in fai li ng su a sp on te to red uc e h i s s e n te nc e be lo w th e

am en de d gu id el in e ran ge
. Fo r st art ers , § 1B 1.1 0( b) (2 ) pr ov id es th at th e di st ric t co ur t

“ sh al l no t red uc e th e de fen da nt ’s te rm of im pr is on m en t

. . . to a te rm th at is le ss th an th e m in im

um of th e am en de d gu id el in e ran ge ,” an d in Vau ti er, we he ld th at , pr io r to th e § 1B 1.1 0 am en dm en t, a de ci si on whe th er to re-a pp ly a do wnwar d de pa rtu re un de r § 35 82 (c) was di sc ret io na ry
. U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 0( b) (2 )(A) (2 01 1) ; Vau ti er, 14 4 F.3 d
at 76 1 (h ol di ng , co nc ern in g th e “ co m pa rab le red uc ti on ” pr ov is io n in th e pr ev io us

6 Case: 12-10798 Date Filed: 08/20/2012 Page: 6 of 8ve rs io n of § 1B .10 , th at “ a di st ric t co ur t, ru li ng on a de fen da nt ’s § 35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n,

ha [d ] th e di sc ret io n to de c i d e whe th er to re-a pp ly a do wnwar d de pa rtu re
. . . whe n

co ns id eri ng wha t se nt en ce th e co ur t wou ld ha ve im po se d un d e r th e am en de d
g u i d e l i n e ” ). The on ly ex cep ti on pr ov id ed un de r th e rev is ed gu id el in e is fo r cas es whe re th e te rm of im

pr is on m en t fel l be lo w th e gu id el in e ran ge du e to a go ve rn m en t

m ot io n ba se d on th e de fen da nt ’s su bs ta nt ia l as si st an ce t o a ut ho rit ie s. U.S.S.G. §
1B 1.1 0( b) (2 )(B)

. Here, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t red uc e Hil l’s se nt en ce to a te rm th at

was “ le ss th an th e m in im

um of th e am en de d gu id el in e ran ge ,” an d Hil l di d no t rece iv e

a do wnwar d de pa rtu re fo r su bs ta nt ia l as si st an ce su ch th at he qu al ifi es fo r th e

ex cep ti on to th e li m it at io n on th e ex te nt of red uc ti on as de te rm in ed in § 1B 1.1 0( b) (1 ). Id

. § 1B 1.1 0( b) (2 )(A)-( B). Acco rd in gl y , Hil l ha s fai le d to sh ow th at th e di st ric t co ur t

co m m it te d an y erro r in fai li ng su a sp on te to red uc e hi s se nt en ce be lo w th e am en de d
gu id el in e ran ge
. Mo reo ve r, ne it he r th is Co ur t no r th e U.S. Su pr em e Co ur t ha s ad d res se d in a
pu bl is he d op in io n th e ap pl ic at io n of th e “ c o mp arab le red uc ti on ” li m it at io n in th e

rece nt rev is io n of

§ 1 B1 .10 , no r whe th er Am en dm en t 7 59 is in va li d fo r th e va rio us

reas on s Hil l as se rts fo r th e fir st ti m e on ap pe al

. The refo re, he can no t m eet hi s bu rd en
to sh ow th at an y erro r by th e di st ric t co ur t in th is reg ard -- even as su m in g th at th ere

was on e -- was pl ai n. Let t, 4 83 F.3d at 7 90

.

7 Case: 12-10798 Date Filed: 08/20/2012 Page: 7 of 8Nor are we pe rs ua de d by hi s arg um en t ba se d on th e ru le of le ni ty, whi ch

req ui res am

bi gu ou s la ws to be in te rp ret ed in f a v o r of th e de fen da nt s su bjec te d to th em
. See Uni te d St at es v. San to s, 55 3 U.S. 50 7, 51 4 (2 00 8)

. “ The si m pl e ex is te nc e of so m e st at ut or y am

bi gu it y . . . i s no t su ffi ci en t to warra nt ap pl ic at io n of th at rul e, fo r m os t s ta tu te s ar e am

bi gu ou s t o s om e d eg ree.” See Mu sc arel lo v. Un it ed Sta te s, 5 2 4 U

. S

. 12 5, 13 8 (1 99 8)

. In or de r fo r th e ru le of le ni ty to ap pl y , th ere mu s t b e a

“ gr ie vo us am

bi gu it y or un cert ai nt y in th e st at ut e.” Id

. at 13 8- 39 (q uo ta ti on s om it te d)

. Bec au se Hil l ha s no t sh own th at th ere is an y “ gr ie vo us am bi gu it y or un cert ai nt y ” in § 1 B1 .10 , th e ru le of l en it y do es no t ap pl y . Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of Hil l’s § 35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n
to red uc e se nt en ce. AFFIRMED.

8 Case: 12-10798 Date Filed: 08/20/2012 Page: 8 of 8