[PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 10 24 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :0 5- cr-6 03 11 -J IC-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 SMI TI LIBERSE, a.k .a. Sm it i Li be ris th er, 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 urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ju ly 30, 2 01 2)

Befo re CARNES, HULL, andMARTIN, Ci rcu itJu dg es .

Case: 12-10243 Date Filed: 07/30/2012 Page: 1 of 12CARNES, Ci rcu itJu dg e:

Thi s i s the th irdde ci si onwe ha ve is su edinth e p as t m on th co nc ern in g t he ap pl ic at io n o f Am en dm en ts 75 0 a nd75 9 t o t he sen te nc in g g ui de li ne s an d t he sc op e o f a d is tri ctco urt’s au th or it y to reduc e a d efen da nt ’s sen te nc e und er 1 8 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ). In t he fir sttwo de ci si on s, we h el d t ha t tho se am en dm en ts di d no t au th or iz e a co urt t o re du ce a s en te nc e und er § 35 82 (c)( 2) if the de fen da nt ’s gu id el in es ran ge rem ai ne d t he st atut ory m an da to ry

m in im um aft er the am en dm en ts orif the gu id el in es ran ge was o th erwi se no t af fect edby the am en dm en ts . See Uni te d S tate s v . Glo ve r, — F.3 d — , No. 1 2- 10 58 0, 2 01 2 WL 28 14 30 3, at*3 –4 (1 1t h C ir. J ul y

11 , 20 12 ) (s ta tu to ry

m an da to ry

m in im um ); Un it edSta te s v . Lawso n, —

F.3d—, No. 1 1- 15 91 2, 2 01 2 WL 28 66 26 5, at*2 –3 (11 th Cir . Ju ly 13, 20 12 ) (o th erwi se un ch an ge d g ui de li ne s ra ng e). Ourde ci si on s i n Gl ov er an d Lawso n e st ab li sh th at“ a co urt ca nn otus e anam en dm en t t o re du ce a s en te nc e in a pa rti cu la r cas e unl es s tha t am en dm en t ac tu al ly lower s the gu id el in es ran ge inth at cas e.” Glo ve r, 20 12 W L 28 14 30 3, at*3 . Thi s ap pe al rai se s a d iff

eren t i ss ue be cau se th e p ro se app el la nt ’s ori gi na l gu id el in es ran ge of 1 21 to 15 1 m on th s was ab ov e, an d t hu s n otaffe ct edby, th e ap pl ic ab le st atut ory

m an da to ry

m in im um of 1 20 m on th s. As a res ul t, Am en dm en ts 75 0 a nd75 9 wo ul d re du ce h is gu id el in es ran ge . For t ho se reas on s, 2 Case: 12-10243 Date Filed: 07/30/2012 Page: 2 of 12§ 3 58 2( c)(2 ) gi ve s the di st ric t co urt au th or it y to reduc e th e se nt en ce i n i ts di sc ret io n. Be cau se th e co urt b el ie ve d i t l ack edth atau th or it y , we vac at e it s o rd er de nyin g t he m ot io n fo r res en te nc in g andrem an d fo r th e co urt t o d et erm in e whe th er t o e xe rci se it s d is cret io n t o re du ce the sen te nc e. I. In20 06 , Sm it i Li be rs e was co nv ic te d o f co ns pi racy to p os se ss with i nt en t t o di st rib ut e 5 0 g ram s o r m or e o f cra ckco cai ne . Libe rs e’s pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep ort h el d h im

acco un tabl e fo r atlea st50 , bu t l es s than 1 50 , gra m s o f cra ck co cai ne . The o ffen se carr ie d ast atut ory m an da to ry

m in im um sen te nc e o f 10 y ears (o r 12 0 m on th s) im

pr is on m en t und er 2 1 U.S.C. § 84 1( b) (1 )(A) (2 00 6) . App lying th e 2 00 5 s en te nc in g g ui de li ne s, the PSR s ethi s b as e o ffen se lev el at 3 2. Se e Uni te d S tate s Se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s § 2D1 .1(c )(4 ) (No v. 2 00 5) . He recei ve d a3- le ve l re du ct io n fo r acc ep tanc e o f res po ns ib il it y , see id . § 3 E1.1 , m ak in g h is to ta l of fen se lev el 29 . W ith acri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory of I V, hi s g ui de li ne s rang e was 12 1 t o 1 51 m on th s i m

pr is on m en t. Alt ho ug h Li be rs e was subjec t t o a12 0- m on th st atut ory m an da to ry

m in im um , th atm an da to ry

m in im um di d n otaffe ctth e cal cu la ti on of h is gu id el in es ran ge be cau se itwas l es s tha n t he 12 1- m on th bo tt om of th e ran ge . See U.S.S.G. § 5 G1.1 (b ) (“ Whe re a s ta tu to ril y requi redmin im

um se nt en ce i s g reat er tha n t he m ax im um of t he ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge , th e 3 Case: 12-10243 Date Filed: 07/30/2012 Page: 3 of 12st atut or il y

requi redm in im

um sen te nc e sh al l b e th e g ui de li ne sen te nc e.”); id . § 5G1 .1(c ) (“ Inan y

othe r cas e, th e se nt en ce m ay be im po se d at an y

po in t wi th in th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge , pro vi de d t ha t the sen te nc e . . . is n otles s tha n a ny st atut or il y

requi redm in im

um sen te nc e.”). The di stric t co urt s en te nc edLib ers e to 12 1 m on th s i m pr is on m en t, the bo tt om of h is gu id el in es ran ge . The g ov ern m en t l at er fi le d aFed eral Ru le of Cri m in al Pro cedur e 3 5( b) m ot io n t o re du ce Li be rs e’s se nt en ce b as edon hi s subs ta nt ia l as si st an ce t o t he go ve rn m en t. The di st ric t co urt g ran te d t ha t m ot io n an d re du cedhi s s en te nc e to 97 m on th s, b el ow h is gu id el in es ran ge an d b el ow the st atut ory m an da to ry

m in im um . See 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (e) (“ Upo n m ot io n o f th e Gov ern m en t, the co urt s ha ll ha ve th e au th or ity to im po se a se nt en ce b el ow a l ev el es tabl is he d b y

st atut e as a min im

um sen te nc e so as t o re fle cta de fen da nt ’s subs ta nt ia l as si st an ce i n t he in ve st ig at io n o r pr os ecu ti on of a no th er p ers on who ha s co m m it te d a n o ffen se .”); U.S.S.G. § 5 K1.1 (“ Upo n m ot io n o f th e g ov ern m en t st at in g t ha t the de fen da ntha s p ro vi de d s ub st an ti al ass is ta nc e in th e in ve st ig at io n orpro se cu ti onof a no th er p ers on who ha s co m m it te d a n o ffen se , th e co urt m ay de pa rt f ro m th e g ui de li ne s.”) . In20 10 , Con gr es s p as se d t he Fai r Sen te nc in g Actof 2 01 0, Pub. L. 11 1- 22 0, 12 4 S ta t. 2 37 2, wh ic h “ in crea se d t he dru g a m ou nt s trig ge rin g m an da to ry 4 Case: 12-10243 Date Filed: 07/30/2012 Page: 4 of 12m in im

um s fo r cra cktra ffi ck in g o ffen se s fr om 5 g ram s t o 2 8 g ram s i n re sp ectto th e 5 -y ear m in im

um an d fr om 50 gra m s t o 2 80 gra m s i n re sp ectto th e 1 0- y ear m in im um ,” Dor se y

v. Un it edSta te s, —

U.S. —, 13 2 S .Ct. 2 32 1, 2 32 9 (2 01 2) ; s ee 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 . “ [T]he Fai r Sen te nc in g Actin st ru ct edth e Co m m is si onto ‘ m ak e su chco nf orm in g a m en dm en ts to th e Fed eral sen te nc in g g ui de li ne s as th e Co m m is si on de te rm in es ne ces sa ry to ach ie ve co ns is te nc y

with o th er g ui de li ne pr ov is io ns an d app li cab le law.’” Dors ey , 13 2 S .Ct. at23 29 (qu ot in g F ai r Sen te nc in g Act§ 8 (2 ), 12 4 S ta t. at23 74 ). The Se nt en ci ng Co m m is si on th en pr om ul ga te d Am en dm en t 7 50 to th e g ui de li ne s, wh ic h re vi se d t he crac k c oc ai ne qu an ti ty tab le s l is te d i n U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1(c ), to co m pl y with t he Fai r Sen te nc in g Act’s i ns tru ct io ns . See U.S.S.G. Ap p. C, amend . 75 0 (No v. 2 01 1) . The Co m m is si on m ad e Am en dm en t 7 50 retro act iv el y ap pl ic ab le by Am en dm en t 7 59 . See U.S.S.G. Ap p. C, amend . 75 9 (No v. 2 01 1) . Inli gh t o f th os e d ev el op m en ts , Lib ers e fi le d apro se m ot io n und er 1 8 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) to reduc e h is sen te nc e, co nt en di ng th atAm en dm en t 7 50 to th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es ha d l owe redhi s g ui de li ne s ra ng e to 70 to 87 m on th s im pr is on m en t. The di st ric t co urt d en ie d t he m ot io n. Th e co urt re as on edth at be cau se Lib ers e was ori gi na ll y sen te nc edbe fo re the Fai r Sen te nc in g Actwentin to effe ct , he was subjec t t o t he same 12 0- m on th st atut ory m an da to ry

m in im um th at 5 Case: 12-10243 Date Filed: 07/30/2012 Page: 5 of 12he ha d b eenwhen he was o rig in al ly sen te nc ed . Andbe cau se “ [t]he Sen te nc in g

Co m m is si on ha s n o aut ho rity

to alt er a s ta tu to ry

m an da to ry

pe na lt y ,” th e d is tri ct co urt co nc lu de d t ha t i t l ack edau th or it y to reduc e Lib ers e’s se nt en ce. He co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt d oe s h av e au th or it y to reduc e h is sen te nc e, arg ui ng th at Am en dm en t 7 50 lo weredhi s g ui de li ne s ra ng e to 70 to 87 m on th s i n p ris on . 1 II.

“ As a g en eral rul e, di st ric t co urts m ay no t m od ify a term

of i m pr is on m en t on ce i t h as be enim

po se d . . . .” Uni te d S ta te s v . W il li am s, 5 49 F.3d13 37 , 13 39 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . There is an“ ex cep ti on . . . fo r a d efen dantwho ha s b een se nt en cedto a te rm

of i m pr is on m en t b as edon a se nt en ci ng ran ge th atha s subs eque nt ly beenlo weredby the Sen te nc in g C omm is si on .” Id . (quo ta ti on m ark s om itte d) ; ac co rd18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ). W he n t ha t h as happ en ed , “ th e co urt m ay reduc e th e te rm

of i m pr is on m en t, af

te r co ns id eri ng th e fac to rs setforth in18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) t o t he ex te ntth atth ey are ap pl ic ab le , if s uc h areduc ti on is co ns is te ntwith app li cab le po li cy st at em en ts is su edby the Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on .” W il li am s, 5 49 F.3dat 1 33 9 (quo ta ti on m ark s an d a lt erat io n

We reviewde novo a district cour t’s leg al conc lusions about the sentencingguidelines 1 and the sc ope of its authority under 18 U .S.C. § 3582(c)(2) . United States v. Davis, 587 F .3d 1300, 1303 (11th Cir. 2009). We revie w only for c lear error the fa ctual finding s underlying the district court’s leg al conc lusions. I d. 6

Case: 12-10243 Date Filed: 07/30/2012 Page: 6 of 12om itte d) ; acco rd18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ).

A cou rt, h owe ve r, “ can no t u se anam en dm en t t o re du ce a s en te nc e in a pa rti cu la r cas e unl es s tha t am en dm en t ac tu al ly lower s the gu id el in es ran ge inth at cas e.” Glo ve r, 20 12 W L 28 14 30 3, at*3 . W e h av e ex pl ai ne d t ha t “ [t]he pu rp os e of § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) is to gi ve a de fen da ntth e b en efi t o f a ret ro act iv el y ap pl ic ab le am en dm en t t o t he gu id el in es . . . . Buthe is no t t o re cei ve a lo wer s en te nc e th anhe wou ldha ve rece iv edif the am en dm en t h adbe enineffe ctat t he ti m e o f hi s se nt en ci ng .” Id . For t ha t re as on , “ a se nt en ci ng co urt l ack s juris di ct io n t o c on si de r a § 35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n, ev enwhen anam en dm en t wo ul d l owe r th e d efen dant ’s ot he rwis e-ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne s s en te nc in g rang e,” i f th e d efen da nt ’s gu id el in es ran ge was, an d re m ai ns , th e st atut ory m an da to ry

m in im um un de r U.S.S.G. § 5G1 .1(b ) (No v. 2 01 1) . Id. (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) ; ac co rdUni te d S tate s v . Mi ll s, 6 13 F.3d10 70 , 10 77 –7 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) ; U.S.S.G. § 5G1 .1(b ) (“ Whe re a st atut or il y

requi redm in im

um sen te nc e is gre at er tha n t he m ax im um of the ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge , th e st atut or il y requi redm in im

um sen te nc e sh al l b e th e gu id el in e se nt en ce.”) . Whe n aretro act iv el y

ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es am en dm en t l owe rs th e gu id el in es ran ge ina cas e, a d is tri ctco urt u su al ly m ay no t re du ce a d efen da nt ’s se nt en ce t o aterm

be lo w th e am en de d g ui de li ne s ra ng e. See U.S.S.G. § 7 Case: 12-10243 Date Filed: 07/30/2012 Page: 7 of 121B 1.1 0( b) (2 )(A) (No v. 2 01 1) . Butth ere i s an ex cep ti on . Sect io n 1 B1 .10 (b )(2 )(B)

of th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es , as re vi se d b y Am en dm en t 7 59 , st at es : Exc ep ti onforSubs tant ia l As si st an ce.— If the term of i m pr is on m en t im po se d was les s tha n t he term of i m pr is on m en t p ro vi de d b y

th e gu id el in e ran ge ap pl ic ab le to th e d efen da ntat t he ti m e o f se nt en ci ng pu rs uantto a go ve rn m en t m ot io n t o re fle ctth e d efen da nt ’s subs ta nt ia l as si st an ce t o aut ho rit ie s, a re du ct io n c om pa rab ly less th anth e am en de d g ui de li ne ran ge de te rm in edun de r subd iv is io n (1 ) of th is subs ect io n m ay

be ap pr op ria te . Id . § 1 B1 .10 (b )(2 )(B) . Exp res sl y in cl ud edwithi n t hi s ex cep ti on are g ov ern m en t subs ta nt ia l as si st an ce m ot io ns un de r U.S.S.G. § 5 K1.1 or Rul e 3 5( b) , li ke th e o ne th e g ov ern m en t fi le d i n Li be rs e’s cas e. U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .10 cmt. n .3. The go ve rn m en t co nt en ds th atLib ers e was sen te nc edba se d o n t he 12 0- m on th st atut ory

m an da to ry

m in im um , eve n t ho ug h h e rec ei ve d aRu le 35 (b ) subs ta nt ia l as si st an ce re du ct io n. So , acco rd in g t o t he go ve rn m en t, the di stric t co urt l ack s au th or ity

to reduc e Lib ers e’s se nt en ce b ecau se Am en dm en t 7 50 di d n ot lo wer h is ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es ran ge . See i d. § 1B 1.1 0( a)(2 )(B) ; s ee al so Uni te d St at es v. Mo or e, 54 1 F .3d13 23 , 13 30 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (“ Whe re a re tro act iv el y ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e am en dm en t re du ces a de fen da nt ’s bas e o ffen se lev el , bu t d oe s no t al te r th e se nt en ci ng ran ge up on whi chhi s o r he r se nt en ce was ba se d, § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) do es no t au th or iz e a reduc ti on insen te nc e.”). W e rejectth e g ov ern m en t’s co nt en ti on . Libe rs e was sen te nc edto 12 1 8 Case: 12-10243 Date Filed: 07/30/2012 Page: 8 of 12m on th s b as edon anori gi na l g ui de li ne s rang e o f 12 1 t o 1 51 m on th s. Am en dm en t

75 0’s re vi si on s t o t he crac k c oc ai ne qu an ti ty tab le s l owe redLib ers e’s ba se off en se le ve l fr om

32 to 26 , m ak in g h is to ta l o ffen se lev el 23 with h is 3-l ev el acce pt an ceof -res po ns ib il ity

reduc ti on . Bas edon th atne w off en se lev el an d acri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory of I V, hi s amend edgu id el in es ran ge wou ldbe 70 to 87 m on th s, unl es s th e ap pl ic ab le st atut ory

m in im um is ab ov e th e b ot to m

of t he am en de d g ui de li ne s ran ge . See U.S.S.G. § 5 G1.1 (b ) (s tati ng th atth e st atut ory min im um sen te nc e is th e g ui de li ne s s en te nc e if th e st atut ory

min im um sen te nc e ex ceed s the ot he rwis e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es ran ge ); i d. § 5G1 .1(c ). In l ig htof t he Fai r Sen te nc in g Act , ho wev er, i t i s n otcle ar wh atLib ers e’s st atut ory m an da to ry

min im um is no w. As we h av e al read y

di sc us se d, the Fai r Sen te nc in g Act“ in crea se d t he dru g am ou nt s trig ge rin g m an da to ry min im um s fo r cra cktra ffi ck in g o ffen se s fr om 5 gr am s t o 2 8 g ram s i n re sp ectto th e 5 -y ear m in im um an d fr om 50 gra m s t o 2 80 gr am s i n re sp ectto th e 1 0- y ear m in im um .” Dors ey , 13 2 S .Ct. at23 29 ; s ee 2 1 U.S.C. § 8 41 (b )(1 ). The Supr em e Co urt i n Do rs ey he ldth atth e Fai r Sen te nc in g Act’s l owe r m an da to ry

m in im um s ap pl y

to de fen dant s wh o c omm it te d acrac k co cai ne cri m e b efo re the Act wen t i nt o e ffec t b utwho m th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t se nt en ce fo r th e fi rs t t im e unt il aft er i t wen t i nt o e ffec t. 1 32 S.Ct . at 2 32 6. Th e Co urt d idno t d eci de , ho wev er, wh ethe r th e Fai r Sen te nc in g Actap pl ie s t o a 9 Case: 12-10243 Date Filed: 07/30/2012 Page: 9 of 12de fen da nt , li ke Lib ers e, who was s en te nc edbe fo re the Act wen t i nt o e ffec t an d

who fil es a § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n t o re du ce h is sen te nc e aft er the Act’s ef fect iv e da te . Andwe do no t h av e to de ci de th atis su e ei th er, b ecau se itdo es no t m at te r to th e o ut co m e o f th is ap pe al . Here’s wh y . If th e Fai r Sen te nc in g Actdo es ap pl y ina § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) pr oc eed in g i n t he se cir cu m st an ces , Lib ers e wou ldbe subjec t t o a5-year m an da to ry m in im um be cau se he co ns pi redto po ss es s wi thin te ntto di st rib ut e atlea st50 , bu t le ss th an15 0, g ram s o f cra ck co cai ne . See 2 1 U.S.C. § 84 1( b) (1 )(B) (ii i) (requi rin g a5-year m an da to ry min im um forpo ss es si on with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te at le as t 2 8 g ram s, b utles s tha n 2 80 gra m s, o f cra ckco cai ne ). Lib ers e’s am en de d gu id el in es ran ge aft er Am en dm en t 7 50 wou ldth enbe 70 to 87 m on th s. Ho wev er, if t he Act d oe s n otap pl y , Lib ers e wou ldbe subjec t t o t he same 10 -y ear ( or12 0- m on th ) m an da to ry

m in im um th athe was s ub

ject t o at h is ori gi na l s en te nc in g. Se e 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (b )(1 )(A) (2 00 6) (requi rin g a10 -y ear m an da to ry min im um for po ss es si on with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te at l eas t 5 0 g ram s o f cra ckco cai ne ). Andth at m an da to ry

m in im um wou ldbe hi s amend edgu id el in es ran ge be cau se itis gre at er th anth e to p o f hi s o th erwi se ap pl ic ab le am en de d g ui de li ne s ra ng e o f 70 to 87 m on th s. See U.S.S.G. § 5 G1.1 (b ). So , whet he r th e Fai r Sen te nc in g Actap pl ie s o r no t, Am en dm en t 7 50 lo wers 10 Case: 12-10243 Date Filed: 07/30/2012 Page: 10 of 12Lib ers e’s gu id el in es ran ge . Both agu id el in es ran ge of 7 0 t o 8 7 m on th s (i f th e Fai r

Sen te nc in g Actap pl ie s) an d agu id el in es ran ge of 1 20 m on th s (i f th e Fai r Sen te nc in g Actdo es no t ap pl y ) are be lo w Lib ers e’s or ig in al gu id el in es ran ge of 12 1 t o 1 51 m on th s. Be cau se Am en dm en t 7 50 do es lo wer Lib ers e’s gu id el in es ran ge , th e d is tri ctco urt erredby con cl ud in g t ha t i t l ack edth e au th or it y to reduc e hi s s en te nc e und er § 35 82 (c)( 2) . See Un it edSta te s v . Brav o, 2 03 F.3d77 8, 7 80 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) (“ [A] dis tri ctco urt h as di sc ret io n t o re du ce the term of im pr is on m en t o f analr eady in carc erat edde fen da ntwhen th atde fen da ntwas se nt en cedba se d o n asen te nc in g ra ng e th atwas s ub se qu en tl y lo weredby the Sen te nc in g C omm is si on . . . .”). Als o, b ecau se Lib ers e rec ei ve d aRu le 35 (b ) subs ta nt ia l as si st an ce re du ct io n o f hi s o rig in al sen te nc e, “ a reduc ti on co m parab ly le ss th anth e am en de d g ui de li ne ran ge . . . m ay be ap pr op ria te .” U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 0( b) (2 )(B) . For t he se reas on s, we v acat e th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f Lib ers e’s § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n andrem an d fo r th e d is tri ctco urt t o c on si de r th e ex te ntto whi ch , if an y , Lib ers e’s se nt en ce s ho ul d b e reduc ed . W e le av e itto th e di st ric t co urt i n t he fir stin st an ce t o d eci de whet he r, inli gh t o f Dor se y , th e Fai r Sen te nc in g Actap pl ie s t o t hi s ca se . 2 The issue of whether

the Fair SentencingAct applies in a § 3582(c) (2) pr ocee ding to a 2 defe ndant who wa s sentence d befor e the Ac t went into effe ct is prese nted in another case curr ently pendingbefor e this Court. An order has bee n issued in that case indicatingit will be 11 Case: 12-10243 Date Filed: 07/30/2012 Page: 11 of 12VACATED AND REMANDED.

schedule d for or al argument afte r supplemental briefs ar e filed on this issue. See United States v. Hippoly te, No. 11-15933. 12 Case: 12-10243 Date Filed: 07/30/2012 Page: 12 of 12