FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 16, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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 0- 13 94 9 No. 1 0- 14 17 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 1- cr-0 05 48 -PCH-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 JOHN COLE, a.k .a. Jo hn Arch ie Co le , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll D efen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 16 , 20 11 ) Befo re HULL, MARTIN an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Jo hn Co le , a fed eral pri so ne r co nv ic te d o f cra ckco cai ne an d fi rearm -rel at ed

of fen se s, ap pe al s the di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n fo r a reduc edsen te nc e, 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ). Becaus e we co nc lu de th atCo le can no t s ho w any erro r, pl ai n o r ot he rwis e, in th e im po si ti on of h is sen te nc e, we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt. Co le was c on vi ct edof p os se ss io n wi thin te ntto di st rib ut e cra ckco cai ne , po ss es si on with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te co cai ne , andtwo fir earm off en se s i n 2 00 1. The di st ric t co urt d et erm in edth atth e ap pl ic ab le sen te nc in g g ui de li ne ran ge was 16 8 t o 2 10 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t, b utfou ndth atCo le face d am an da to ry m in im um sen te nc e o f li fe i m

pr is on m en t u nd er 2 1 U.S.C. § 84 1( b) (1 )(A) o n t he crac k c oc ai ne off

en se . The co urt s en te nc edCo le to li fe i m pr is on m en t. In20 10 , aft er the gu id el in e ap pl ic ab le to crac k c oc ai ne off en se s was am en de d, Co le fil eda m ot io n t o c orrecthi s s en te nc e und er § 35 82 (c) i n l ig htof th e am en dm en ts . The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d the m ot io n, co nc lu di ng th atCo le was 1 no t el ig ib le fora reduc ti on be cau se he ha d b eensen te nc edinacco rd an ce wi th th e st atut ory m in im um sen te nc e an d n otpu rs ua ntto th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in e ran ge . 2

Cole filed the motion pro se . The district cour t later a ppointed counsel. 1 Cole filed a notice of appe al from the district c ourt’s orde r and the n filed a motion for 2 extension of tim e to re ply to the g overnme nt’s response to his § 3582 mot ion. The cour t denied the extension of time, finding that it lacke d jurisdiction because Cole had filed a notice of a

ppeal. Cole’s counsel f

iled a notice of

appea l, and the appe als wer e consolidate d.

2On ap pe al , Col e arg ue s, fo r th e fi rs t t im e, th atth e st atut ory m in im um pe na lty vi ol at es Due P ro ces s an d Equa l Pr ot ect io n a ndth us is un co ns ti tu ti on al . 3 W e rev ie w forpl ai n e rro r whe n ade fen da ntfai ls to rai se anis su e in th e di st ric t co urt. Uni te d Sta tes v. Mo re no , 42 1 F .3d12 17 , 12 20 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Und er p la in erro r rev ie w, th e d efen dantm us t s ho w th atth ere i s “ (1 ) erro r, (2 ) th at is pl ai n, an d (3 ) th ataffe ct s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. If all th ree c on di ti on s ar e m et , an ap pe ll at e co urt m ay

th enex erci se it s d is cret io n t o n ot ic e a fo rfei te d e rro r, bu t o nl y if ( 4) th e err orser io us ly affect s the fai rn es s, i nt eg rit y , or p ub li c rep ut at io n o f jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs .” Id
. (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . A § 3 58 2( c) m ot io n fo r a reduc ti on insen te nc e is no t the pro pe r ve hi cl e to rai se a co ns ti tu ti on al ch al le ng e to a se nt en ce. Uni te d Sta tes v. Brav o , 20 3 F .3d 77 8, 7 81 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). In a§ 3 58 2( c) p ro ceed in g, “ al l ori gi na l s en te nc in g de te rm in at io ns rem ai n u nc ha ng edwith t he so le ex cep ti onof t he gu id el in e ran ge th atha s b eenam en de d s in ce the ori gi na l s en te nc in g.” Id
. In fa ct , a de fen da ntis no t en ti tl edto a fu ll res en te nc in g dur in g a§ 3 58 2( c) p ro ceed in g, an d a ny se nt en ci ng reduc ti on ari si ng fro m a § 3 58 2( c) m ot io n m

us t b e “ co ns is te ntwith

Cole does not make a

ny argument on appea l as to the district court’s f inding that the 3 guideline amendme nts cannot re duce his minimum mandatory sentenc e, and thus he has abandone d any

such argument. United States v. Cunningham , 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 ( 11th Cir. 1998). 3ap pl ic ab le po li cy st at em en ts is su edby the Sen te nc in g C omm is si on .” 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ); U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 0( a)(3 ). Thu s, co ns ti tu ti on al ch al le ng es are

“ ex tra ne ou s” sen te nc in g i ss ue s, an d i f Co le wis he s t o c ha ll en ge th e co ns ti tu ti on al it y

of h is sen te nc e, th e p ro pe r m etho d i s i n c ol la te ral att ackun de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5. Bra vo , 20 3 F .3dat 7 81 -8 2. Mo reo ve r, ha d C ol e rai se d h is arg um en t b efo re the di st ric t co urt, the co urt wou ldha ve lac ke d ju ris di ct io n t o c on si de r it . Se e id
. at 7 82 (ex pl ai ni ng th atan Eig ht h Am en dm en t ch al le ng e to th e d efen da nt ’s sen te nc e, rai se d i n a§ 3 58 2( c) m ot io n, was an“ ex tra ne ou s” res en te nc in g i ss ue ou ts id e th e d is tri ctco urt’s juri sd ic ti on ). Acco rd in gl y , bec au se a § 3 58 2( c) p ro ceed in g d oe s n otpro vi de a de fen da nt with a n o pp ortu ni ty to ra is e a co ns ti tu ti on al ch al le ng e to hi s s en te nc e, Co le ha s fai le d t o s ho w any erro r, pl ai n o r ot he rwis e, in th e d en ia l o f hi s § 35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n. AFFIRMED.

4