[DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 10 07 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 4 :9 9- cr-1 00 35 -KMM -3 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 JERM AINE MATHIS, 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
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J anua ry 29 , 20 13 ) Befo re WILSON, MARTIN an d B LACK, Circ ui t Jud ge s. PER CURI AM:

Case: 12-10076 Date Filed: 01/29/2013 Page: 1 of 3Je rm ai ne Mat hi s ap pe al s the di stric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s 1 8 U.S.C.

§ 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n t o re du ce h is sen te nc e b as edonAm en dm en t 7 50 to th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es . Mathi s was sen te nc edas acare er o ffen de r pu rs ua ntto U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1. Onap pe al , he c on ced es th e li m it edsco pe of § 35 82 (c)( 2) pr oc eed in gs , bu t u rg es th is Co urt t o re vi ew th e dru g qua nt it y fin di ng s at se nt en ci ng inth e in te res t o f jus ti ce. 1

“ [W] e rev ie w de no vo th e d is tri ctco urt’s l eg al co nc lu si on s re ga rd in g t he sc op e o f it s au th or it y

un de r th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Mo or e , 54 1 F .3d13 23 , 13 26 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). A di st ric t co urt m ay no t re du ce a de fen da nt ’s term

of i m pr is on m en t u nl es s t he de fen da nt ’s sen te nc e was ba se d upo n a se nt en ci ng ran ge th atth e Sen te nc in g C omm is si on subs eque nt ly lower ed , th e di st ric t co urt co ns id ers th e 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s, an d t he reduc 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 . 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ). Mat hi s’s s en te nc e was ba se d o n h is care er-o ffen de r en ha nc em en t, an d Am en dm en t 7 50 th eref

or e h adno effe ctonhi s s en te nc in g ra ng e und er § 4B 1.1 . Se e Mo or e , 54 1 F .3dat 1 32 7 (h ol di ng th atwhen a de fen da ntis sen te nc edas a Mathis reque sts that, in the alternative to grantinga sente nce r eduction, this Court 1 reope n his prior 28 U.S.C. § 2255 moti on to vacate, which wa s denied in 2007. Mathis may not use his § 3582(c) (2) motion to reope n his § 2255 moti on to vacate. See28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). 2 Case: 12-10076 Date Filed: 01/29/2013 Page: 2 of 3care er o ffen de r, th e se nt en ce i s “ ba se d o n” th e g ui de li ne ran ge s ap pl ic ab le to

care er o ffen de rs un de r § 4 B1 .1, n otth e le ve ls setforth in§ 2 D1.1 ). Mo reo ve r, th e di st ric t co urt was no t p erm it te d t o c ha ng e an y of t he ori gi na l s en te nc in g cal cu la ti on s i n t he § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) pr oc eed in gs ex cep t tho se affe ct edby a retro act iv e gu id el in e am en dm en t. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Br av o , 20 3 F .3d77 8, 7 81 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Ther efo re, Ma th is is in el ig ib le forrel ie f un de r § 3 58 2( c)(2 ), an d t he di st ric t co urt d idno t err in de nyin g h is m ot io n. AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 12-10076 Date Filed: 01/29/2013 Page: 3 of 3