FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT OCT 6, 2008 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. 08- 11849 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 4 9 0 - CR- T- 1 7 - TBM 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 E L I A S A B U S A I D , J R ., 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 M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 6, 2008) B efo re M A R C U S , W IL S O N an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

E l i as A bu sa i d, Jr . , proceedi ng pro se, appeal s the di stri ctcourt ’ s ( 1) deni al of hi s m ot i on f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on of

the de ni a l of

hi s m ot i on f

orm odi f i c a t i on of s e n te n c e , p u r s u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) ; ( 2 ) d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n to c o rr e c t a d o ck et i n g erro r; an d (3 ) d en i al o f h i s m o t i o n fo r th e d i stri ctco u rtj u d g e t o recu se h e r s e lf . F o rth e r e a s o n s s e t f

o r th b e lo w , w e a f

f irm . I. A j ury f ou nd A bu sa i d g ui l ty of ( 1) on e c ou ntof m ai nt ai ni ng an es t abl i shm entfor the pu rpose of unl aw ful l y di stri bu t i ng or usi ng a c on trol l ed s ubs t a nc e , s pe c i f

i c a l l y M e thy l e ne di oxy m e tha m phe t a m i ne ( “ M D M A ” ) , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . § 856( a ) ( 2) a nd ( b) , a nd ( 2) one c ountof be i ng a f

e l on i n pos s e s s i on of a f i r e a r m , i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . §§ 922( g) ( 1) a nd 924( a ) ( 2) . I n c a l c ul a t i ng A bu sa i d’ s c ri m i nal hi st ory c at egory f or se nt enci ng , a probat i on offi ce r a ss es se d A bus a i d f

i ve c r i m i na l hi s t ory poi nt s ba s e d on thr e e c onvi c t i ons f orope r a t i ng a d a n c e h a ll o rr a v e c lu b w ith o u t alic e n s e a n d o n e c o n v ic tio n f o ro p e r a tin g a b o ttle cl u b an d sel l i n g al co h o l w i th o u ta l i cen ce. B ased o n th i s an d o th er cal cu l at i o n s, th e d i stri ctco u rtsen t en ced A b u sai d t o tw o co n cu rren tt erm s o f 9 7 m o n th s’ im p r is o n m e n t. W e a f

f irm e d A b u s a id ’s c o n v ic tio n s a n d s e n te n c e s o n ap p e a l. U ni t ed S t at es v. A bu sa i d , C as e N o. 05 -112 60 (11th C i r. Jul y 5, 20 06 ). A b u s a id f

ile d a m o tio n f

o rm o d if ic a tio n o f

s e n te n c e , p u r s u a n t to3

§ 3582( c ) ( 2) , a r gui ng tha thi s c r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory w a s c a l c ul a t e d ba s e d on l ocal ordi nance convic t i on s a nd thatA m endm ent70 9 t o the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes r e c e nt l y i ns truc t e d tha tl oc a l or di na nc e vi ol a t i ons s houl d notbe c ount e d t ow a r d a defe nd ant ’ s c ri m i nal hi st ory c at egory. T he go vernm entre spon ded that A m endm ent70 9 w as no tl i st ed i n U . S . S . G . § 1 B 1. 10 (c ) a nd w as no t , there fore , r e tr oa c t i ve , s uc h tha ti tdi d nota uthor i z e m odi f i c a t i on unde r§ 3582( c ) ( 2) . T he d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie d th e m o tio n , c itin g th e g o v e rn m e n t’s r e a s o n in g . T h e d e p u ty c l e r k m i s t a ke nl y doc ke t e d A bus a i d’ s m ot i on, the gove rnm e nt ’ s r e s pons e , a nd the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of the m ot i on a s de a l i ng w i th a “ M ot i on f orr e tr oa c t i ve appl i ca t i on of the cr ac k g ui del i nes. ” A bu sa i d fi l ed a m ot i on for r ec on si dera t i on , a m ot i on t o o rderthe di stri ct court ’ s deputy c l erk t o rem ov al al l re fe re nces t o “ cr ac k cocai ne” f rom the do cket s he e t , a nd a m ot i on f

orthe di s tr i c tc our tj udge t o r e c us e he r s e l f f orde m ons tr a t i ng bi a s a ga i ns tA bus a i d by “ rubbe rs t a m pi ng de ni a l or de r s on a r e gul a ra nd ongoi ng b a s is .” T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie d A b u s a id ’s m o tio n s . O n A p r il 1 1 , 2 0 0 8 , A b u s a id f ile d a N O A f

r o m th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n s . II. W e r e v ie w th e d e n ia l o f a m o tio n to r e c o n s id e rf o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S i m m s , 385 F . 3d 1347, 1356 ( 11th C i r . 2004) . W e a l s o r e vi e w the4

deni al of a m ot i on for m od i fi ca t i on of se nt ence for an abu se of di sc re t i on . U ni t ed S t at es v. M oreno, 42 1 F . 3d 12 17 , 12 19 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). P ursuantt o § 35 82 (c )( 2), [ I ] n the c a s e of

a de f e nda ntw ho ha s be e n s e nt e nc e d t o a t e rm of i m pri sonm entbase d o n a se nt enci ng ra ng e thathas s ub se qu ent l y bee n l ow er ed by the S ent enci ng C om m i ss i on pu rs uantt o 2 8 U . S . C . 99 4(o), u p o n m o t i o n o f th e d efen d an to r th e D i rect o r o f th e B u reau o f P ri so n s, o ro n its o w n m o tio n , th e c o u r t m a y r e d u c e th e te rm o f im p r is o n m e n t, a f t e rc ons i de r i ng the f

a c t or s s e tf

or th i n s e c t i on 3553( a ) t o the e xt e nt th a t th e y a r e ap p lic ab le , if s u c h a r e d u c tio n is c o n s is te n t w ith appl i c abl e pol i c y s t a t e m e nt s i s s ue d by the S e nt e nc i ng C om m i s s i on. P ur s ua ntt o the S e nt e nc i ng C om m i s s i on’ s pol i c y s t a t e m e nton r e tr oa c t i ve r e duc t i on o f sen t en ces: I n a c a s e i n w hi c h a de f e nda nti s s e rvi ng a t e rm of i m pr i s onm e nt , a nd the gu i del i ne ra ng e app l i cabl e t o thatdefe nd anthas s ub se qu ent l y bee n l ow er ed as a r es ul tof an am endm entt o the G ui del i nes M anual l i st ed i n s ubs e c t i on ( c ) be l ow , the c our tm a y r e duc e the de f e nda nt ’ s t e rm of i m pri sonm entas prov i ded b y 18 U . S . C . § 3 58 2(c) (2), and any such r e duc t i on i n the de f

e nda nt ’ s t e rm of

i m pr i s onm e nts ha l l be c ons i s t e nt w i th thi s pol i c y s t a t e m e nt U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .1 0 ( a ) ( 1 ) . I n U n ite d S ta te s v . A rm s tr o n g , 3 4 7 F .3 d 9 0 5 , 9 0 9 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 03 ), w e i nt erpret ed the abov e l angu age a nd es t abl i shed a “ bri gh t -l i ne rul e” that“ am endm ent s c l ai m ed i n § 35 82 (c )( 2) m ot i on s m aybe re troac t i vel y app l i ed s o le ly w h e r e e x p r e s s ly lis te d u n d e r§ 1 B 1 .1 0 ( c ) .” A m e n d m e n t 7 0 9 is n o t lis te d in § 1 B 1 .1 0 ( c ) . I n A r m s tr o n g , a s h e r e , th e m o v a n t c o n c e d e d th a t th e a m e n d m e n ts inAs an initial matter, wenote that, despite the g overnment’s argument otherwise, w e 1 have jurisdiction over Abusaid’s a ppeal f rom the denial of his motion for rec onsideration. The g overnment points t o the “a nticipatory” notices of

appeal that Abusaid filed at the sa me time as his § 3582(c)( 2) motion and motion for rec onsideration and a rgues that these notice s were ineffe ctive to perfec t appeal. We agreewith the g overnment’s position that these notice s were eff ective a nd, indeed, previously

sua sponte dismissed the appe als taken by way of these notice s. See United States v. Abusaid, Case No. 08-10409- J(11th Cir. Feb. 29, 2008); United States v. Abusaid, Case N o. 08-11147-J (11th Ci r. Apr. 16, 2008) . However, weconcludethat we never theless havejurisdiction becauseof the a bove-mentioned April 11, 2008, notice of a ppeal from the denial of his motion for rec onsideration and other motions. 5 qu es t i on w er e notl i st ed i n § 1B 1. 10 (c ), bu tar gu ed thatthese am endm ent s w er e c l a r i f y i ng a nd tha tc l a r i f

y i ng a m e ndm e nt s a l w a y s a r e r e tr oa c t i ve . A rm s tr ong, 347 F . 3d at90 8. W e a ckno w l edged thatcl ar i fy i ng am endm ent s, or am endm ent s that do note f f e c ta s ubs t a nt i ve c ha nge , buti ns t e a d pr ovi de pe r s ua s i ve e vi de nc e of how the S e nt e nc i ng C om m i s s i on or i gi na l l y e nvi s i one d appl i c a t i on of the r e l e va nt gu i del i ne, appl y r etroac t i vel y, bu tre j ec t ed the m ov ant ’ s a rgum entand est abl i shed a rul e thatcl ar i fy i ng am endm ent s “ m ayon l y be r etroac t i vel y app l i ed on di re ct ap p e a l o f a s e n te n c e o ru n d e ra § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n .” I d . a t 9 0 8 - 9 0 9 . III. T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng A bus a i d’ s m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on. S e e S i m m s , 385 F . 3d 1356. M ot i ons f orm odi f i c a t i on of 1 s e n te n c e u n d e r§ 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) m u s t b e b a s e d o n r e tr o a c tiv e ly ap p lic ab le am endm ent s, or am endm ent s l i st ed i n § 1B 1. 10 (c ). S ee U . S . S . G . § 1 B 1. 10 (a )( 1); A r m s tr o n g , 3 4 7 F .3 d a t 9 0 9 . A m e n d m e n t 7 0 9 is n o t lis te d in § 1 B 1 .1 0 ( c ) .Tothee xtent th at Abu said a rgue s th at th edis tric t c ourt sh ould h avec on str

ue d his 2 § 3582(c) (2) motion as an a mendment to his § 2255 moti on, his argument is without m erit, as therewas no re ason for

the district court to construethe § 3582(c )(2) motion as such. Likewise, to t hee xtent th at Abu said a

rgue s th at th edis tric t c ourt erre d in a sse ssingc rimin al hi sto ry po int s ba se d o n th eof

fens e s in qu e sti on re g ardle ss o f Amendment 7 09 , his a rgument i s n ot p roperly be fo reus . 6 T h e r e f o r e , A b u s a id ’s m o tio n d id n o t s ta te g r o u n d s o n w h ic h th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o u ld m o d if y h is s e n te n c e , s u c h 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 decl i ni ng t o d o so. S ee M oreno, 42 1 F . 3d at12 19 . M oreover, t o the ext entthat A bu sa i d argues thatA m endm ent70 9 w as m er el y c l ar i fy i ng and there fore appl i ed r e tr o a c tiv e ly to m o d if

y h is s e n te n c e , w e p r e v io u s ly h a v e r e je c te d th is a r g u m e n t. S e e A r m s tr ong, 347 F . 3d a t908- 09. T he di s tr i c tc our ta l s o di d note rri n de ny i ng 2 A bu sa i d’ s m ot i on t o o rderthe di stri ctcourt ’ s deputy c l erk t o rem ov e a l l re fe re nces to “c r a c k c o c a in e ” f

r o m th e d o c k e t s h e e t a n d m o tio n f o rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t ju d g e to r e c us e he r s e l f

, a s A bus a i d ha s notde m ons tr a t e d, a nd the r e c or d othe rw i s e doe s not sugg es t , thatthe do cket i ng error a ff ec t ed A bu sa i d’ s r i gh t s or thatthe di stri ctcourt j u d g e a c t e d a n t a g o n i s t i c a l l y t o w a r d A b u s a i d . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e a f f i rm.

AF F IRMED.7