FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APRI L7, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 15 22 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 2- 80 17 4- CR-KLR UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us SAMM Y LEE POTTS, 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 fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ap ril 7, 2 00 9) Befo re TJ OFLAT, BIRCH an d DUBI NA, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Samm y Lee Po tt 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 t o re du ce hi s s en te nc e p ur su an t t o 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) . Potts was s en te nc edin Sep te m be r 20 03 to 20 0 m on th s o f im pr is on m en t fo r po ss es si on with i nt en t t o di st rib ut e atlea stfiv e g ram s o f cra ckco cai ne , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ). Even th ou gh he was s en te nc edas acare er o ffen de r, Po tt s co nt en ds th at he is en ti tl edto a se nt en ce re du ct io n b ecau se hi s b as e o ffen se lev el was l owe red by Am en dm en t 7 06 to th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es . After c aref ul rev ie w, we AFFIRM. W e rev ie w de n ov o adi stric t co urt’s l eg al co nc lu si on s ab ou t the sco pe of i ts
au th or ity un de r § 3 58 2( c)(2 ). See Un it edSta te s v . Mo or e, 54 1 F .3d13 23 , 13 26 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a § 35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v . Mo ren o, 4 21 F.3d12 17 , 12 19 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (p er cu ria m). A di stric t co urt h as th e au th or ity to reduc e a s en te nc e b as edona gu id el in e im

pr is on m en t ra ng e th atha s s ub se qu en tl y be enlo weredby the Sen te nc in g C omm is si on . See 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) . Am en dm en t 7 06 , effec ti ve retro act iv el y

as o f 3 M arch 20 08 , perm it s a t wo- le ve l re du ct io n i n the ba se off en se le ve ls un de r U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (c) fo r cert ai n c rackco cai ne off en se s. See Mo or e, 54 1 F .3dat 1 32 5. Am en dm en t 7 06 do es no t af fectth e g ui de li ne ran ge s o f de fen da nt s s en te nc edas c aree r of fen de rs un de r U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1, h owe ve r. See
2id . at 1 33 0. Acco rd in gl y , eve n tho ug h Am en dm en t 7 06 m ay reduc e a d efen da nt ’s ba se off en se lev el un de r § 2 D1.1 (c), a d efen da ntis no t en ti tl edto a se nt en ce reduc ti on if h e is sen te nc edas acare er o ffen de r un de r § 4 B1 .1. See id
. Mo or e co ntro ls th e o ut co m e o f th is cas e. Po tt s was sen te nc edas acare er of fen de r un de r § 4 B1 .1 wh ic h yiel de d an o ffen se lev el of 3 4. He was award eda th ree- le ve l d own wardad

jus tm en t fo r ti m el y

acce pt in g re sp on si bi li ty andass is ti ng
au th or it ie s i n the in ve st ig at io n o r pr os ecu ti on , res ul ti ng ina to ta l o ffen se lev el of 31 . His o ffen se lev el un de r th e car eer o ffen de r se ct io n app li edbe cau se itwas gr eat er tha n h is ba se off

en se lev el of 2 8 u nd er § 2D1 .1. See U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1(b ) (p ro vi di ng th at“ if t he off en se lev el fora care er o ffen de r . . . is g reat er tha n the of fen se lev el othe rwis e ap pl ic ab le , th e o ffen se lev el fro m th e tabl e in th is
subs ect io n s ha ll ap pl y ”). Eve n tho ug h Am en dm en t 7 06 wou ldreduc e Po tt s’s b as e of fen se lev el un de r § 2 D1.1 fro m 28 to 26 , hi s g ui de li ne sen te nc in g ra ng e wou ld
rem ai n the same un de r th e car eer o ffen de r pr ov is io n. Thus , bec au se Am en dm en t 70 6 h adno effe ctonPo tt s’s s en te nc in g ra ng e, § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) di d n otau th or iz e a
se nt en ce re du ct io n. Se e Mo or e, 54 1 F .3dat 1 33 0. Po tt s ar gu es th atanex cep ti on to Mo or e ap pl ie s h ere. He p oi nt s t o a fo ot no te inUni te d S tate s v . Jam es , 54 8 F .3d98 3, 9 85 n.2 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (p er
curia m), inwhi chwe ackno wled ge d tha t “ Am en dm en t 7 06 co ul d app ly to the
3se nt en ce o f anarm edcare er cr im in al ” whe re “ § 2 D1.1 (c) was ap pl ie d a t the

or ig in al sen te nc in g fo r anarm edcare er cri m in al be cau se itpro du cedth e h ig he st of fen se lev el am on g the rel ev an t ca lc ul at io ns in§ 4 B1 .4(b ).” As Po tt s co nc ed es , he was n otsen te nc edas a n arm edcare er cr im in al . Equ al ly im po rta nt , hi s b as e of fen se lev el un de r § 2 D1.1 (c) was no t ap pl ie d a t h is ori gi na l s en te nc in g b ecau se he ha d agre at er o ffen se lev el un de r th e car eer o ffen de r pr ov is io n. Th e ex cep ti on
no te d i n J am es is th eref

or e in ap pl ic ab le
. Fo r th es e rea so ns , we AFFIRM th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f Po tt s’s m ot io n fo r se nt en ce re du ct io n. AFFIRMED.

4