[DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 11 83 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 4 :8 9- cr-0 40 13 -WS-CAS-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, ve rs us THEODORE COCKRAN, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll D efen 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 North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 1 2, 2 01 2) Befo re HULL, MARTIN an d F AY, Circ ui t Jud ge s. PER CURI AM: The od or e Co ckran , pro ceed in g pr o s e , app eal s the di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f Case: 12-11837 Date Filed: 10/12/2012 Page: 1 of 8hi s m ot io n fo r a s en te nc e reduc ti on , pu rs ua ntto 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ), an d t he

de ni al of h is subs eque ntm ot io n “ to alt er o r am en d [the ] jud gm en t.” Onap pe al , Co ckranarg ue s t ha t: (1) he is en ti tl edto a se nt en ce re du ct io n u nd er Am en dm en t 75 0 t o t he Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es ba se d o n t he dru g qua nt it y am ou ntch arg edin hi s i nd ic tm en t; an d (2 ) th e 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) s en te nc in g fa ct or s s up po rte d t he im po si ti on of areduc edsen te nc e. Fo r th e rea so ns setforth be lo w, we affi rm th e di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f Co ckran ’s § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n. I. In19 93 , Coc kr anpl edgu il ty to o ne co un t o f co ns pi racy to p os se ss with in te ntto di st rib ut e m or e th an50 gra m s o f co cai ne ba se , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1 a nd84 6. Acco rd in g t he pre se nt en ce i nv es ti ga ti on rep ort (“ PSI” ), fro m 19 87 to 19 89 , law en fo rcem en t o ffi ci al s i nv es ti ga te d C oc kr an ’s rol e as th e “ he ad of a la rg e cra ck

co cai ne di st rib ut io n o rg an iz at io n i n the Tall ah as se e, Fl or id a are a.” Dur in g t he in ve st ig at io n, J os ep hi ne Ru ck er, a wi tn es s wh o p ol ic e o ffi cers qu es ti on edin rel at io n t o a19 87 dru g s ei zu re, s ta te d t ha t Co ckranwas “ act iv e in de al in g l arg e qua nt it ie s (k il og ram s) of c rackco cai ne .” Add it io na ll y , Aus ti n San de rs , a co op erat in g wi tn es s, s ta te d t ha t Co ckran“ co ul d h an dl e m ul ti -k il o de al s,” a ndth athe “ co ns is te nt ly han dl edki lo gr am s o ve r a p eri odof e ig ht m on th s.” Fi na ll y , Ran ce Co nn er, a dru g c ou rie r in th e dru g o rg an iz at io n, 2 Case: 12-11837 Date Filed: 10/12/2012 Page: 2 of 8in di cat edth atCo ckranha d “ ha nd le d k il og ram s o f co cai ne m or e th anon ce, an d

po ss ib ly as m an y

as f iv e ti m es in19 88 .” Bas edon th e 1 98 7 S en te nc in g Gu id el in es Man ua l, the pro ba ti on off ic er as si gn eda ba se off

en se lev el of 3 6, p ur su an t t o U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1(a )(3 ). The PS I no te d t ha t the go ve rn m en t b el ie ve d t ha t Co ckranwas i nv ol ve d wi th “ nu m ero us ki lo gr am s o f co cai ne ba se ” in th e co ns pi racy, andth e b as e o ffen se lev el was 3 6 be cau se Co ckranwas a cco un tabl e fo r m or e th an50 0 g ram s o f cra ckco cai ne . He rece iv eda fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r hi s l ead ers hi p ro le , pu rs ua ntto U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .1(a ), a two -le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r ob st ru ct io n o f jus ti ce, an d atwo -le ve l reduc ti on foracce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il ity , un de r U.S.S.G. § 3 E1.1 (a). Thus , hi s to ta l o ffen se lev el was 4 0. Ba se d o n a n o ffen se lev el of 4 0 a nda cri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory of I I, Co ckran ’s gu id el in e ran ge was 3 24 to 40 5 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Dur in g t he sen te nc in g h eari ng , Coc kr andi d n otob ject t o t he dru g quant it y , an d a s a r es ul t, the co urt d idno t ad dr es s an y dru g qua nt ity

is su es . The co urt ad op te d t he PSI’s g ui de li ne cal cu la ti on s, an d s en te nc edCo ckranto 32 4 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. InDecem be r 20 11 , Coc kr anfil edth e in st an t pr o s e § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n ba se d o n Am en dm en t 7 50 . In h is m ot io n, Co ckranass ert edth at , bec au se he pl ed gu il ty to p os se ss in g 5 0 g ram s o f co cai ne ba se as c ha rg edin th e in di ct m en t, h e was 3 Case: 12-11837 Date Filed: 10/12/2012 Page: 3 of 8el ig ib le fora se nt en ce re du ct io n. Fu rth er, h e al le ge d t ha t h is co un se l o bjec te d t o

th e PSI dur in g s en te nc in g. Ap pl y in g Am en dm en t 7 50 wou ldres ul t i n agu id el in e ran ge of 8 8 t o 1 20 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Fi na ll y , Coc kr anass ert edth atsev eral § 3 55 3( a) s en te nc in g fa ct or s warran te d areduc ti on . The di stric t co urt d en ie d C oc kr an ’s § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n. Th e co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t Co ckranwas s en te nc ed“pu rs ua ntto th e 1 98 7 Gu id el in es , whi ch at tri bu te d aba se off

en se lev el of 3 6 (t he hi gh es t l ev el at tha t t im e) t o c on du ct in vo lv in g m or e th an50 0 g ram s o f co cai ne ba se .” Howev er, the PSI i nd ic at edth at Co ckranwas a ct iv e in de al in g “ ki lo gr am s” of c oc ai ne . Coc kr andi d n otob ject t o th e dru g qua nt it ie s d es cri be d i n the PSI, an d a cco rd in gl y , th e se nt en ci ng co urt d id no t ad dr es s t he is su e o f drug qu an ti ty. The s en te nc in g c ou rt, h owe ve r, ad op te d t he factua l fi nd in gs in th e PSI. Ap pl y in g t he rev is edgu id el in es to “ th e m ul ti -k il o drug qu an ti ti es ” d es cri be d i n t he PSI, Co ckran ’s bas e o ffen se lev el wou ldst il l b e atlea sta 36 . Becau se hi s g ui de li ne ran ge was n otlo weredby Am en dm en t 7 50 , th e co urt l ack edjuri sd ic ti on to reduc e Co ckran ’s sen te nc e u nd er § 35 82 (c)( 2) . Co ckranm ov edto am en d o r al te r th e jud gm en t, es se nt ia ll y reque st in g reco ns id erat io n o f th e d en ia l o f hi s § 35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n. Th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d Co ckran ’s m ot io n t o a lt er o r am en d t he jud gm en t, fi nd in g t ha t n othi ng in th e m ot io n a ffec te d t he co urt’s p rio r de ci si onas t o h is § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n. 4 Case: 12-11837 Date Filed: 10/12/2012 Page: 4 of 8II.

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 ab ou t the sco pe of it s au th or it y

un de r th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es an d i ts fact fin di ng s fo r cl ear e rro r. Uni te d Sta tes v. Da vis , 58 7 F .3d13 00 , 13 03 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). A cou rt m ay on ly m od ify a term

of i m pr is on m en t i n l im it edcir cu m st an ces , in cl ud in g wh ere a de fen da nt“ ha s b een sen 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 C omm is si on .” 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ). A defe nd an t i s n oten ti tl edto be res en te nc edun de r § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) if

th e am en dm en t “ wou ldno t re su ltin a lo wer b as e o ffen se lev el an d gu id el in es ran ge .” Uni te d Sta tes v. J ames , 54 8 F .3d98 3, 9 86 (11 thCir . 20 08 ). Add it io na ll y , § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) do es no t g ran t the di st ric t co urt juris di ct io n t o reco ns id er al l o rig in al sen te nc in g d et erm in at io ns . Uni te d Sta tes v. Br av o , 20 3 F.3 d 7 78 , 78 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) . In fa ct , “ 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 the gu id el in e 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.” Id
. Furth er, wh enanam en dm en t d oe s no t re du ce a d efen da nt ’s sen te nc in g ra ng e, an d d is tri ctco urt l ack s au th or it y to gr an t a s en te nc e reduc ti on un de r § 3 58 2( c)(2 ), th e co urt n eedno t ex am in e th e § 3 55 3( a) s en te nc in g fa ct or s. Uni te d Sta tes v. Webb , 56 5 F .3d78 9, 7 93 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). 5

Case: 12-11837 Date Filed: 10/12/2012 Page: 5 of 8Inde te rm in in g t he ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge forpu rp os es of a§ 3 58 2( c)(2 )

m ot io n, the di st ric t co urt i s b ou ndby the ori gi na l s en te nc in g c ou rt’s fa ctua l de te rm in at io ns . Uni te d Sta tes v. C othr an , 10 6 F .3d15 60 , 15 63 n.5 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) (aff irming di st ric t co urt’s re fu sa l t o re -ex am in e th e num be r of m ari juan a pl an ts att rib ut edto th e d efen da ntby the ori gi na l s en te nc in g c ou rt) . The co urt co nduc ti ng th e § 35 82 (c)( 2) pro ceed in g, h owe ve r, do es no t m ak e an

“ im pe rm is si bl e n ew fi nd in g o f fac t” if i t h ol ds a de fen da ntres po ns ib le fora drug qu an ti ty tha t was (1) setforth in th e o rig in al PSI, (2 ) no t o bjec te d t o b y th e go ve rn m en t o r de fen da nt , and(3) ad op te d b y th e o rig in al sen te nc in g c ou rt. Dav is , 58 7 F .3dat 1 30 3- 04 (affi rm in g d is tri ctco urt’s d et erm in at io n t ha t d efen dantwas in el ig ib le forrel ie f ba se d o n t he ori gi na l s en te nc in g c ou rt’s a do pt io n o f th e PSI’s factua l fi nd in g t ha t the off en se in vo lv edat l eas t 8 ki lo gr am s o f cra ckco cai ne , ev enth ou gh th e o rig in al co urt h adno t s pe ci fie d a n e xa ctqu an ti ty in ex ces s o f 1.5 ki lo gr am s) . Am en dm en t 7 50 , effec ti ve Nov em be r 1, 2 01 1, m ad e p erm an en t an am en dm en t l owe rin g t he ba se off en se lev el s fo r pa rti cu lar cra ckco cai ne qu an ti ti es in U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (c). Se e U.S.S.G. App . C, Am en ds . 74 8, 7 50 . Thes e am en dm en ts alt eredth e Dru g Qu an ti ty T ab le in § 2 D1.1 (c) s o t ha t a b as e o ffen se le ve l o f 36 ap pl ie s t o c as es in vo lv in g a t l eas t 2 .8 k il og ram s b utles s t han 8 .4 6 Case: 12-11837 Date Filed: 10/12/2012 Page: 6 of 8ki lo gr am s o f co cai ne ba se . Se e id
. ; U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1(c )(1 ).

The di stric t co urt co rrec tl y de ni edCo ckran ’s § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n. Here , Co ckrandi d n otob

ject t o t he dru g qua nt ity

am ou nt s o r fac tu al all eg at io ns in th e PSI, an d the ori gi na l s en te nc in g c ou rt e xp res sl y ad op te d t he PSI’s g ui de li ne cal cu la ti on s an d fa ctua l fi nd in gs . The PSI ass ig ne d C oc kr ananoff en se lev el of 36 , whi ch at t ha t t im e requi reda m in im um dru g qua nt it y

am ou ntof 5 00 gra m s o f co cai ne ba se . Howev er, the un di sp ut edfactua l al le ga ti on s i n t he PSI s up po rte d th e d is tri ctco urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in g t ha t Co ckrantra ffi ck edin at l eas t 2 .8 k il og ram s of co cai ne , as re qu ire d fo r a b as e o ffen se lev el of 3 6 u nd er Am en dm en t 7 50 . Sp eci fic al ly, th e PSI i nd ic at edth at : (1 ) Co ckranwas “ act iv e in de al in g l arg e qu an ti ti es (ki lo gr am s) of c oc ai ne ,” (2 ) he co ul d h an dl e “ m ul ti -k il o” de al s; (3) he ha d c on si st en tl y

ha nd le d k il og ram s o f co cai ne ov er s ev eral m on th s; an d (4 ) he ha d

“ ha nd le d k il og ram s o f cra ckco cai ne m or e th anon ce, an d p os si bl y as m an y as f iv e ti m es in 19 88 .” As i n Dav is , alt ho ug h t he di stric t co urt d idno t s pe ci fy anex act qu an ti ty of co cai ne , othe r th anth e m in im um 50 0 g ram

requi rem en t, the sen te nc in g co urt’s ad op ti on of t he PSI’s fac tu al fin di ng s was su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh th at Co ckranwas re sp on si bl e fo r de al in g i n m ul ti pl e k il og ram s o f co cai ne . Se e Dav is , 58 7 F .3dat 1 30 3- 04 . Altho ug h C oc kr anall eg es th athi s i nd ic tm en t o nl y refe ren cedanam ou nt 7 Case: 12-11837 Date Filed: 10/12/2012 Page: 7 of 8gr eat er tha n 5 0 g ram s o f co cai ne , he n ev er o bjec te d t o t he dru g qua nt it ie s

de sc rib edin th e PSI. Fu rth er, Co ckranrel ie s o n the Supr em e Co urt’s re cen t de ci si on in Free man v. Uni te d Sta tes , __U.S. __ _, 1 31 S.Ct . 26 85 , 18 0 L.Ed .2d 51 9 (2 01 1) , bu t h e fai ls to ex pl ai n t he rel ev an ce o f Free man to th is ap pe al . Free man add res se d wh ethe r a d efen da ntwho en te rs a Fed .R.Cri m .P. 11 (c)( 1) (C) pl ea ag reem en t i s el ig ib le for a se nt en ce re du ct io n u nd er § 35 82 (c)( 2) . Se e Free man , __U.S. at _

_, 1 31 S.Ct . at 2 69 1. Inth is cas e, ho wev er, the di st ric t co urt di d n otde ny Cockran ’s m ot io n fo r a s en te nc e reduc ti on be cau se he en te reda Ru le 11 pl ea ag reem en t, b utin st ead , itfou ndth athi s ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge was n ot subs eque nt ly lower edby the Sen te nc in g C omm is si on . Fin al ly, al th ou gh Co ckran al le ge s t ha t the § 3 55 3( a) s en te nc in g fa ct or s warran te d areduc edsen te nc e, th e di st ric t co urt was no t re qu ire d t o c on si de r th os e fac to rs . Se e W eb b , 56 5 F .3dat 79 3. Be cau se th e ap pl ic at io n o f Am en dm en t 7 50 wou ldno t re su ltin a lo wer b as e of fen se lev el or g ui de li ne ran ge , Coc kr anwas n oten ti tl edto a se nt en ce re du ct io n un de r § 3 58 2( c)(2 ). Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err. Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f Co ckran ’s § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n. AFFIRMED.

8 Case: 12-11837 Date Filed: 10/12/2012 Page: 8 of 8