FI L ED
U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S

EL EVENTH CI RCUI T DECEMBER 18, 2008

THOMAS K. KAH

N
CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

N o

. 0 8

- 1 3 0 4 0

N o n

- A r g u m e n t C a l e n d a r

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 0 3

- 0 0 3 0 2

- C R

- T

- 2 6

- T B M

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A

,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e ,

v e r s u s

R Y A N F E R R O

,

D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A p p e a l f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
f o r t h e M i d d l e D i s t r i c t o f F l o r i d a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

( D e c e m b e r 1 8

, 2 0 0 8 )

B e f o r e T J O F L A T

, D U B I N A a n d H U L L

, C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.

P E R C U R I A M :

R y a n F e r r o , a f

e d e r a l p r i s o n e r c o n v i c t e d o f a c r a c k c o c a i n e o f f e n s e , a p p e a l st h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s r u l i n g o n h i s p r o s e m o t i o n f o r a r e d u c e d s e n t e n c e u n d e r 1 8

U

. S

. C

. § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 )

. A f t e r r e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m

.

F e r r o f i l e d h i s § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) m o t i o n b a s e d o n A m e n d m e n t 7 0 6 t o t h e

S e n t e n c i n g G u i d e l i n e s , w h i c h l o w e r e d t h e b a s e o f f e n s e l e v e l s a p p l i c a b l e t o c r a c k

c o c a i n e o f

f e n s e s

. S e e U

. S

. S

. G

. A p p

. C

, a m e n d s

. 7 0 6

, 7 1 3

. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t

g r a n t e d F e r r o ’ s m o t i o n i n p a r t a n d r e d u c e d F e r r o ’ s 1 5 1

- m o n t h s e n t e n c e t o 1 2 1 1

m o n t h s ’ i m p r i s o n m e n t

, t h e l o w e n d o f F e r r o ’ s n e w g u i d e l i n e s r a n g e o f 1 2 1 t o 1 5 1

m o n t h s

.

T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e n i e d F e r r o ’ s r e q u e s t t o i m p o s e a s e n t e n c e b e l o w t h e n e w

g u i d e l i n e s r a n g e , c o n c l u d i n g t h a t

, p u r s u a n t t o U

. S

. S

. G

. § 1 B 1

. 1 0 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( A )

, d i s t r i c t

c o u r t s a r e n o t a u t h o r i z e d u n d e r § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) t o r e d u c e a d e f e n d a n t ’ s s e n t e n c e

b e l o w t h e l o w e n d o f t h e a m e n d e d g u i d e l i n e s r a n g e

. C i t i n g U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. 2

B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U

. S

. 2 2 0

, 1 2 5 S

. C t

. 7 3 8 ( 2 0 0 5 )

, F e r r o a r g u e s t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t

e r r e d w h e n i t c o n c l u d e d t h a t i t l a c k e d a u t h o r i t y t o r e d u c e F e r r o ’ s s e n t e n c e b e l o w

At his origina l sentencing , Fe rro’ s g uidelines rang e, af ter a U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 substantial 1

assistance reduc tion, was 168 to 210 months’ imprisonm ent, and the district c ourt imposed a
168-month sentence . Fe rro late r re ceive d a Rule 35(b) substantial assistance r eduction, g iving him a g uidelines rang e of 151 to 188 months’ imprisonment, and the district cour t imposed a
151-month sentence

.
Section 3582(c) (2) r equire s a sentenc e re duction to be consistent with the Sentencing 2 Guidelines’ policy

statements, which include s U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2). Section 1B1.10( b)(2) and its commentary prec lude a district cour

t from re ducing a def

endant’ s
sentenc e below the amende d g uidelines rang e if the de fenda nt’s orig inal sentenc e fe ll within t he
then-a pplicable g uidelines rang e. See U .S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)( 2)(A) -(B ) & cmt. n.3.

2t h e l o w e n d o f h i s a m e n d e d g u i d e l i n e s r a n g e

. 3

W e n e e d n o t r e s o l v e w h e t h e r B o o k e r a p p l i e s t o § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) r e s e n t e n c i n g s ,

h o w e v e r , b e c a u s e a n y a l l e g e d e r r o r w a s h a r m l e s s

. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e x p r e s s l y

f o u n d t h a t “ e v e n i f B o o k e r w e r e a p p l i e d

, t h e C o u r t w o u l d i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d i m p o s e

t h e s a m e s e n t e n c e ” a n d t h a t F e r r o ’ s 1 2 1

- m o n t h s e n t e n c e w a s “ s u f f i c i e n t b u t n o t

g r e a t e r t h a n n e c e s s a r y t o c o m p l y w i t h a l l o f t h e f a c t o r s c o n s i d e r e d u n d e r 1 8 U

. S

. C

.

§ 3 5 5 3 ( a )

. ” ( Q u o t a t i o n m a r k s o m i t t e d )

. I n l i g h t o f t h e s e f i n d i n g s , w e f

a i r l y c a n

c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t w o u l d h a v e i m p o s e d t h e s a m e 1 2 1

- m o n t h s e n t e n c e

e v e n i f i t h a d b e l i e v e d i t h a d t h e a u t h o r i t y t o i m p o s e a s e n t e n c e b e l o w t h e a m e n d e d

g u i d e l i n e s r a n g e

. A s a r e s u l t

, a n y e r r o r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t m a y h a v e m a d e h a d o n l y

a v e r y s l i g h t

, i f a n y , e f

f e c t o n F e r r o ’ s s e n t e n c e a n d w a s h a r m l e s s

. S e e U n i t e d

S t a t e s v

. M a t h e n i a , 4 0 9 F

. 3 d 1 2 8 9

, 1 2 9 2 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 5 ) ( e x p l a i n i n g t h a t a

s t a t u t o r y B o o k e r e r r o r i s h a r m l e s s w h e n i t d i d n o t a f f e c t

, o r h a d o n l y a v e r y s l i g h t

e f f e c t o n , t h e s e n t e n c e w h e n v i e w i n g t h e p r o c e e d i n g s a s a w h o l e )

.

A F F I R M E D

.

We review de novo the district cour t’s leg al conc lusions reg arding the scope of its 3 authority to reduc e a se ntence under § 3582( c)( 2). United States v. White, 305 F.3d 1264, 1267 (11th Cir. 2002).

3