[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 16 10 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 :0 5- cr-6 01 74 -J IC-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us TEVIS COOPER, 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 19 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, KRAVITCH andEDMONDSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:

Case: 11-16106 Date Filed: 11/19/2012 Page: 1 of 5Tev is Co op er, wh o p le ad edgu il ty to p os se ss io n wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e fi ve

gr am s o r m or e o f cra ckco cai ne , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) , app eal s the di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n fo r reduc ti on of se nt en ce, wh ic h was ba se d o n Am en dm en t 7 50 . Coo pe r co nt en ds th at , pu rs ua nt to Free m anv. Un it edSta te s, _ _ U.S. _ _, 1 31 S.Ct . 26 85 , 18 0 L.Ed .2d51 9 (2 01 1) , th e d is tri ctco urt erredby con cl ud in g tha t h e was in el ig ib le fora se ct io n 35 82 (c)( 2) reduc ti on be cau se of h is care er o ffen de r st atus . No rev ers ib le erro r ha s be ensh own ; we af

firm . W e rev ie w on ly for ab us e o f di sc ret io n adi st ric t co urt’s d eci si onto de ny reduc ti on of ade fen da nt ’s sen te nc e p ur su an t t o s ect io n 3 58 2( c)(2 ), Uni te d S ta te s v. M or en o, 4 21 F.3d12 17 , 12 19 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ), bu t we re vi ew de no vo it s co nc lu si on s ab ou t the sco pe of i ts leg al au th or it y un de r se ct io n 3 58 2( c)(2 ). Uni te d St at es v. J am es , 54 8 F .3d98 3, 9 84 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Ina se ct io n 3 58 2( c)(2 ) pr oc eed in g, a d is tri ctco urt m ay no t m od ify a term

of im pr is on m en t u nl es s a d efen da ntwas s en te nc edba se d o n asen te nc in g ra ng e th at ha s “ subs eque nt ly beenlo wered ” b y th e Sen te nc in g C omm is si on . See 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) . The ap pl ic ab le po li cy st at em en ts pro vi de th ata se nt en ce re du ct io n i s no t au th or iz edun de r se ct io n 3 58 2( c)(2 ) if “ ‘the am en dm en t d oe s n otha ve th e effe ctof l owe rin g t he de fen da nt ’s app li cab le gu id el in e ran ge be cau se of t he 2 Case: 11-16106 Date Filed: 11/19/2012 Page: 2 of 5op erat io n o f an ot he r gu id el in e o r st atut ory pro vi si on .’ ” Uni te d S ta 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) )). Am en dm en t 7 50 , whi chha s b eenm ad e ret ro act iv e, ad jus te d t he ba se of fen se lev el s l is te d i n t he Drug Quan ti ty T ab le inU.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (c) t o l im itth e se nt en ci ng di sp ari ty betweenpo wde r co cai ne an d c rackco cai ne off en se s. See U.S.S.G. App . C., am en d. 7 50 ; U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 0( c). Nev erthe le ss , if a d efen da nt was sen te nc edas acare er o ffen de r, hi s b as e o ffen se lev el was d et erm in edun de r th e car eer- of

fen de r gu id el in e in U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1(b ): t he dru g- qu an ti ty gui de li ne in § 2 D1.1 (c) u lt im at el y

pl ay edno rol e in hi s s en te nc e. Mo or e, 54 1 F .3dat 1 32 7. Altho ug h Am en dm en t 7 50 m ig htha ve reduc edCo op er’s b as e o ffen se lev el un de r se ct io n 2 D1.1 , itwou ldno t h av e lo weredhi s t ot al off en se lev el or h is ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es ran ge be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt h adsen te nc edCo op er as a care er o ffen de r un de r se ct io n 4 B1 .1. Un de r th is enhanc em en t, Co op er was subjec t to a ba se off

en se lev el of 3 4, wi th ou t re ga rdto th e qua nt it y of c rackco cai ne in vo lv edinhi s o ffen se co nduc t. Co nt rary to C oo pe r’s as se rti on , th e Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on inFree m an of fers hi m no rel ie f. In F reem an , fiv e jus ti ces of the Supr em e Co urt ru le d t ha t en te rin g i nt o aFed .R.Cri m .P. 11 (c)( 1) (C) p le a ag reem en t d idno t ca te go ric al ly bar 3 Case: 11-16106 Date Filed: 11/19/2012 Page: 3 of 5a d efen da ntfro m ob ta in in g re li ef p ur su an t t o s ect io n 3 58 2( c). Free m an , __U.S. at

__ , 13 1 S .Ct. at26 95 (So to m ay or , J., co nc urrin g) ; s ee M ark s v . Uni te d S ta te s, 4 30 U.S. 18 8, 1 93 , 97 S.Ct . 99 0, 9 93 , 51 L.Ed.2d26 0 (1 97 7) (no ti ng th at , “ th e h ol di ng of th e Co urt m ay

be vi ewedas t ha t p os it io n t ak enby tho se Mem be rs who co nc urredinth e jud gm en ts on th e n arro wes t g ro un ds .”). In st ead , th e Co urt ex pl ai ne d, wh ere s uc h a n a gr eem en t “ ex pr es sl y us es a Gui de li ne s s en te nc in g ra ng e to est ab li sh th e te rm

of i m pr is on m en t, an d t ha t ra ng e is subs eque nt ly lower edby th e Co m m is si on , th e d efen da ntis eli gi bl e fo r se nt en ce re du ct io n u nd er § 3 58 2( c)(2 ).” Id . at _

_, 1 31 S.Ct . at 2 69 8. Thi s Fr eem ancir cu m st an ce i s n otth e si tu at io n h ere. Co op er’s 1 88 -m on th se nt en ce was no t b as edon a se nt en ce joi nt ly agree d- up onby the pa rti es ina pl ea ag reem en t n ordi d i t ex pr es sl y rel y on a gu id el in e ran ge th atwas l at er re du ced . In st ead , Coo pe r’s se nt en ce was ba se d e nt ire ly on t he care er o ffen de r en ha nc em en t pr ov is io ns , whi chdo no t i nc or po rat e se ct io n 2 D1.1 ’s dru g quant it y tab le , andth us , was un affe ct edby Am en dm en t 7 50 . Co op er i s l ik e th e m ov an t i n M oo re. Am en dm en t 7 50 reduc edhi s b as e of fen se lev el bu t d idno t l owe r hi s ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge , whi chwas d ic ta te d by his care er o ffen de r st atus . Accor di ng ly, Co op er i s n oteli gi bl e fo r a s ect io n

4 Case: 11-16106 Date Filed: 11/19/2012 Page: 4 of 535 82 (c)( 2) sen te nc e reduc ti on , andth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y

de nyin g h im

on e. * AFFIR MED.

Cooper off

ers no support f

or his dubious argument that the district court might have quietly * reje cted the c are er- offe nder e nhance ment at sentenc ing a nd instead imposed an a

bove-Guidelines sentenc e that wa s, in fact, ba sed on the drugquantity table. His argument there fore is waived. See United States v. F lores, 572 F .3d 1254, 1265 n.3 (11th Cir. 2009) (whe re a plaintiff identifies an argument on appeal but fails to provide supportingauthority or fa cts, we de em the argument not briefe d, and thus waive d). 5

Case: 11-16106 Date Filed: 11/19/2012 Page: 5 of 5