FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 25, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 73 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 6- cr-2 05 01 -UU-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, vers us RODRIC K CLAYTON, 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 25 , 20 12 ) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, CARNES an d WILSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: App el la ntRo dr ic k C la yto n app eal s t he di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s pr o s em ot io n fo r a s en te nc e reduc ti on un de r 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ). In 2 00 7, t he

di st ric t co urt s en te nc edCla yto n a s a c aree r of fen de r to 15 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, whi chin cl ud eda 20 % reduc ti on ba se d upo n h is subs ta nt ia l as si st an ce. Inhi s § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n, Cl ayto n h adarg ue d t ha t, d es pi te be in g acare er o ffen de r, he was en ti tl edto a reduc ti on un de r Am en dm en t 7 50 an d t he Fai r Sen te nc in g Act , whi chwas c om

parab ly less th anth e am en de d g ui de li ne ran ge sen te nc e in ord er t o refl ecthi s s ub st an ti al ass is ta nc e to au th or it ie s. Onap pe al , Cla yto n a ckno wled ge s th athe was s en te nc edas acare er o ffen de r, bu t ar gu es forth e fi rs t t im e th athe is en ti tl edto a se nt en ce re du ct io n u nd er § 35 82 (c)( 2) be cau se , in li gh t o f Uni te d St at es v. Free man , 56 4 U.S. _

__ , 13 1 S . Ct. 2 68 5, 1 80 L. Ed. 2d51 9 (2 01 1) , (p lu ral it y op in io n) hi s s en te nc e was “ba se d o n” th e cra ckgu id el in es th atwere l at er am en de d b y

th e U.S. Sen te nc in g C omm is si on .

“ W e rev ie w de no vo a d is tri ctco urt’s co nc lu si on s ab ou t t he sco pe of i ts le ga l au th or ity

un de r 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ).” Uni te d Sta te s v. J ame s , 54 8 F .3d 98 3, 9 84 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Object io ns or a rg um en ts th atare n otrai se d a t the di st ric t co urt ar e rev ie wedforpl ai n e rro r. Se e Uni te d Sta te s v. Eva ns , 47 8 F .3d 13 32 , 13 38 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (rev ie win g acla im th atth ere was anin su ffi ci en t factua l b as is fora gu il ty ple a fo r pl ai n e rro r). To p ro ve pl ai n e rro r, a d efen da nt m us t s ho w: “ (1 ) erro r, (2 ) th atis pl ai n, an d (3 ) th ataffe ct s s ub st an ti al rig ht s.” 2Uni te d Sta te s v. Tu rn er , 47 4 F .3d12 65 , 12 76 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n

m ark s o m it te d) . If all th ree c on di ti on s ar e m et , we m ay ex erci se ou r di sc ret io n t o reco gn iz e th e err or , if i t “ se rio us ly affect s t he 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. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . “ A pl ai n e rro r is anerro r th atis ob vi ou s an d i s cl ear u nd er cu rren t l aw.” Uni te d St at es v. Hump hr ey , 16 4 F .3d58 5, 5 88 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) . Fed eral co urts have th e au th or it y to co ns id er re du ci ng th e se nt en ce “ of a de fen da ntwho ha s b eensen te nc edto 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 s ub se qu en tl y be enlo weredby the Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on .” 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ). A di st ric t co urt m us t fo ll ow a t wo- st ep pr oc es s i n ru li ng on a § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n. Uni te d Sta te s v. Br av o , 20 3 F .3d77 8, 78 0 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 0) . Firs t, the co urt m us t re cal cu la te th e d efen da nt ’s sen te nc e

“by sub st itut in g t he am en de d g ui de li ne ran ge for th e o rig in al ly app li edgu id el in e ran ge , andth enus in g t ha t n ew ba se lev el to de te rm in e wha t u lt im at e se nt en ce i t wou ldha ve im

po se d.” Id. In o th er wo rd s, t he co urt “ sh al l d et erm in e th e am en de d gu id el in e ran ge th atwou ldha ve be enap pl ic ab le to th e d efen da ntif t he am en dm en t(s ) . . . hadbe enin effe ctat t he ti m e th atth e d efen da ntwas s en te nc ed .” U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .10 (b )(1 ). Und er the sec on d s te p, as a m atte r of di sc ret io n, t he 3co urt m

us t d eci de whet he r to ret ai n t he ori gi na l s en te nc e o r to re-s en te nc e th e de fen da ntun de r th e am en de d g ui de li ne ran ge . Bra vo , 20 3 F .3dat 7 81 . A caree r of

fen de r’s ba se off

en se lev el is de te rm in edby usi ng eit he r th e of fen se lev el th atwou ldord in ari ly app ly und er Ch ap te rs 2 an d 3 or, i f itres ul ts in a h ig he r of

fen se lev el , th e tabl e in § 4 B1 .1(b ). U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.1 (b ). A § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) pr oc eed in g d oe s n otco ns ti tu te a de no vo re-s en te nc in g a nd“ al l or ig in al sen te nc in g d et erm in at io ns rem ai n u nc ha ng edwith t he so le ex cep ti on of th e g ui de li ne ran ge th atha s b een am en de d s in ce the ori gi na l s en te nc in g.” Bra vo , 20 3 F .3dat 7 81 . A “ reduc ti onun de r § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) is no t au th or iz edwher e ‘the am en dm en t . . . is ap pl ic ab le to th e d efen da ntbu t t he am en dm en t d oe s n otha ve th e eff ectof l owe rin g t he de fen da nt ’s app li cab le gu id el in e ran ge be ca us e o f the op er at io n o

f a no th er gu idel in e . . . .’ ” Uni te d Sta te s v. Mo or e , 54 1 F .3d13 23 , 13 27 -2 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) (qu ot in g U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 0, co m m en t. (n .1(A) ) (em ph as is ad de d) . In Moo re , we hel d tha t d efen da nt s wh o o rig in al ly w ere se nt en cedun de r § 4 B1 .1(b )’s care er-o ffen de r tabl e were n oteli gi bl e fo r § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) rel ie f be cau se th ei r gu id el in e ran ge s wer e n otba se d o n t he drug -qua nt it y

off en se lev el s t ha t h adbe enlo weredby Am en dm en t 7 06 . Id. at13 27 -3 0.

4If a d efen da ntde si gn at edas acare er o ffen de r co m m it s an off

en se th at carr ie s a s ta tu to ry

m ax im um of 2 5 years o r m or e o f im pr is on m en t an d l es s tha n li fe i m pr is on m en t, the ap pl ic ab le off en se lev el is 34 . U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.1 (b )(B) . PartA of Am en dm en t 7 50 am en de d § 2D1 .1 b y rev is in g the Drug Quan ti ty T ab le in § 2 D1.1 (c), an d re du ci ng off en se lev el s as so ci at edwith v ari ou s amoun ts of crac k c oc ai ne . U.S.S.G. App . C, am en d. 7 50 , Pt. A, cr os s r ef er en ci ng U.S.S.G. App . C, am en d. 7 48 (20 11 ). Am en dm en t 7 50 be cam e eff ect iv e o n No ve m

be r 1, 20 11 . U.S.S.G. App . C, am en d. 7 50 . In Free man , th e Supr em e Co urt co ns id eredth e que st io n o f “ whe th er de fen da nt s wh o e nt er i nt o p le a ag reem en ts th atreco m m en d apa rti cu lar se nt en ce as a co nd it io n o f th e g ui lt y pl ea m ay be eli gi bl e fo r rel ie f un de r § 3 58 2( c)(2 ).” Free man , 56 4 U.S. at__

_, 1 31 S. Ct. at26 90 . A plu ral it y of t he Supr em e Co urt de te rm in edth ata di st ric t co urt’s i m po si ti on of asen te nc e m ay be ba se d upo n t he Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es , eve n i f th e d efen da ntpl ead s g ui lt y un de r Fed .R.Cri m .P. 11 (c)( 1) (C). Id. There fo re, the pl ur al it y op in io n c on cl ud ed , § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) rel ie f m ay be av ai labl e if

th e se nt en ce was “ba se d o n” a gu id el in e ran ge th atwas ul ti m at el y

lo weredby the U.S. Sen te nc in g C omm is si on . Id. In aco nc urrin g op in io n, J us ti ce So to m ay orag reedwith the pl ur al it y th atth e p ris on er was eli gi bl e fo r a s en te nc in g re du ct io n, b uthe ldth ata te rm of i m pr is on m en t tha t was im

po se d 5pu rs ua ntto a Fed .R.Cri m .P. 11 (c)( 1) (C) p le a ag reem en t i s “ ba se d o n” th e p le a

ag reem en t i ts el f, an d n otth e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es . 56 4 U.S. at__ _, 1 31 S. Ct. at26 95 (So to m ay or , J., co nc urrin g i n the jud gm en t). Ho wev er, J us ti ce So to m ay or ’s con cu rri ng op in io n a ls o d et erm in edth at , when a pl ea ag reem en t

“ ex pr es sl y

us es a Gui de li ne s s en te nc in g ra ng e ap pl ic ab le to th e ch arg edoff en se to es tabl is h t he term

of i m pr is on m en t,” a ndth e U.S. Sen te nc in g C omm is si on subs eque nt ly lower s t ha t ra ng e, th e te rm of i m pr is on m en t i s “ ba se d o n” th e ran ge us edan d t he de fen da ntis eli gi bl e fo r a s en te nc in g re du ct io n u nd er § 35 82 (c)( 2) . Id. (So to m ay or , J., co nc urrin g i n t he jud gm en t). Bec au se th e rec or d d em on st rat es th atCla yto n was sen te nc edas acare er of fen de r, we co nc lu de th atAm en dm en t 7 50 to th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es do es no t ch an ge hi s o ffen se lev el or h is gu id el in e ran ge . In ad di ti on , we con cl ud e th atth e di st ric t co urt d idno t p la in ly err in no t ap pl y in g Free man to hi s ca se be cau se (1) bo th th e p lu ral it y

op in io n a ndJu st ic e So to m ay or ’s con cu rri ng op in io n i n t ha t ca se were l im it edto th e co nt ex t o f a d efen dantwho was s en te nc edpu rs ua ntto a pl ea ag reem en t u nd er Fe d.R .Cri m .P. 11 (c)( 1) (C), an d (2 ) th ere i s n o b in di ng au th or it y ap pl y in g t he reas on in g o f Free man to th e co nt ex t o f a car eer o ffen de r se ek in g § 35 82 (c)( 2) rel ie f. Fo r th e afo rem en ti on edreas on s, we af firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er d en y in g 6Free m an ’s m ot io n fo r a s en te nc e reduc ti on .

AFFIRMED.

7