FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 22, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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 0- 10 23 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 7- cr-1 40 83 -KMM -1 USA, Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, ve rs us JESS E LEESWANSON, a.k .a. Je ss e Lee Harv ey , a.k .a. FredP. McKi nn on , a.k .a. Kevi ren t Br

un da ge , a.k .a. Jo na th anSm al l, a.k .a. Je ss e Harv ey , a.k .a. Trav is Co le , a.k .a. FredLee McKi nn on , a.k .a. Jay fo n Lee Mac ke y , Defen da nt- App el lant .__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jul y 22 , 20 10 ) Befo re ANDERSON, CARNES an d B ARKETT, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Je ss e Lee Swan so n, p ro ceed in g p ro se, app eal s the di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n t o m od ify his sen te nc e p ur su an t t o 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) . Swans on was sen te nc edto 32 7 m on th s i m pr is on m en t af

te r he pl edgu il ty to o ne co un t o f co ns pi racy to p os se ss with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te fiv e g ram s o r m or e o f cra ckco cai ne , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 46 . After t hi s co urt af firm edhi s s en te nc e o n d ire ct ap pe al , Swan so n fi le d asec ti on 35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n b as edonAm en dm en t 7 06 to th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es , whi chlo weredth e o ffen se lev el s tha t ap pl y ba se d o n th e qua nt ity

of c rackco cai ne att rib ut edto a de fen da nt . On ap pe al , Swan so n arg ue s tha t the di stric t co urt erredinfin di ng hi m in el ig ib le fora se nt en ci ng reduc ti on onth e g ro un d tha t h is gu id el in e ran ge was d et erm in edba se d o n h is st atus as acare er o ffen de r un de r U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1, an d thu s h adno t b een subs eque nt ly lower edby the Sen te nc in g C omm is si on . Becau se Am en dm en t 7 06

2be cam e eff

ect iv e b efo re Swan so n was sen te nc edan d was ap pl ie d a t h is ori gi na l se nt en ci ng , we affi rm . 1 A di st ric t co urt h as th e au th or ity to m od ify a defe nd an t’s s en te nc e if itwas

“ba se d o n asen te nc in g ra ng e th atha s s ub se qu en tl y be enlo weredby the Sen te nc in g C omm is si on . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ). Und er thi s p ro vi si on , co urts can no t m od ify a sen te nc e unl es s a r etro act iv el y ap pl ic ab le am en dm en t t o th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es ha s the effe ctof l owe rin g the gu id el in e ran ge up on whi cha de fen da nt ’s sen te nc e was ba se d. Un it edSta te s v . Arm st ro ng , 34 7 F .3d 90 5, 9 09 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). W e rev ie w de n ov o adi stric t co urt’s l eg al co nc lu si on s ab ou t the sco pe of i ts au th or ity un de r se ct io n 3 58 2( c)(2 ). Uni te d S ta te s v . Mo or e, 54 1 F .3d13 23 , 13 26 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a s ect io n 35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Un it edSta te s v . Ju le s, 5 95 F.3d12 39 , 12 41 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Bec au se Am en dm en t 7 06 be cam e eff ect iv e b efo re Swan so n was sen te nc ed an d was ap pl ie d a t h is ori gi na l s en te nc in g, i t d idno t s ub se qu en tl y lo wer h is gu id el in e ran ge . Am en dm en t 7 06 be cam e eff ect iv e o n No ve m

be r 1, 2 00 7. U.S.S.G. App . C, Am en d. 7 06 (20 07 ). Swan so n was sen te nc edon Ju ne 9, 2 00 8.

The district cour

t denied the motion on a diffe rent ground, but we ma y aff irm for a ny 1 rea son supported by

the re cord. United States v. Al-Aria n, 514 F.3d 1184, 1189 ( 11th Cir. 2008). 3His gu id el in e ran ge was c al cu late d p ur su an t t o the 20 07 Fed eral Sen te nc in g

Gui de li ne s M anua l, wh ic h i nc or po rat edth e rev is io n m an da te d b y Am en dm en t 70 6. Whil e Swan so n’s g ui de li ne ran ge was u lt im at el y de te rm in edba se d o n h is st atus as acare er o ffen de r un de r U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1, h is ba se off en se lev el was a ls o cal cu la te d u nd er U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (c) an d, p ur su an t t o Am en dm en t 7 06 , reduc ed by two l ev el s b ecau se hi s o ffen se in vo lv edcrac k c oc ai ne . There fo re, the di st ric t co urt h adno au th or ity

un de r se ct io n 3 58 2( c)(2 ) to m od ify Swans on ’s sen te nc e. To the ex te ntth atSwan so n c ha ll en ge s h is ori gi na l s en te nc e – he arg ue s tha t bo th th e cra ck -p owd er s en te nc in g d is pa rit y an d the in ap pl ic ab il ity

of Am en dm en t 70 6's ba se off

en se lev el reduc ti on to de fen da nt s s en te nc edas c aree r of fen de rs vi ol at e th e Equ al Pro te ct io n C laus e – th e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly decl in edto ad dr es s the se arg um en ts be cau se th ey are o ut si de th e sc op e o f a s ect io n 3 58 2 pr oc eed in g. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v . Brav o, 2 03 F.3d77 8, 7 81 -8 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) (h ol di ng th atdi stric t co urts lac k juris di ct io n u nd er s ect io n 3 58 2( c) t o c on si de r ch al le ng es to th e o rig in al sen te nc e o r to ch an ge ori gi na l s en te nc in g d et erm in at io ns

“ with the so le ex cep ti on of t he gu id el in e ran ge th atha s b eenam en de d s in ce the or ig in al sen te nc in g.” ). Swan so n h as als o ra is edth es e equa l p ro te ct io n c la im s i n a 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5 m ot io n p en di ng inth e d is tri ctco urt, wh ic h i s the pro pe r ve hi cl e fo r a co ll at eral att ackonhi s o rig in al sen te nc e. 4Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f Swan so n’s § 35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n. AFFIRMED.

5