[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 10 34 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 4 :9 0- cr-0 40 51 -WS-W CS-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 NATHANIELJAM ES, 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 North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jul y 19 , 20 12 ) Befo re HULL, MARCUS an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Nath an ie l J am es , 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 hi s Case: 12-10341 Date Filed: 07/19/2012 Page: 1 of 6m 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 ). On ap pe al ,

Ja m es arg ue s tha t the di stric t co urt: (1) sh ou ldha ve gra nt edhi s m ot io n a nd as si gn edhi m

a gu id el in e ran ge of 0 to 24 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t; an d (2 ) co m mit te d a n ex p os t f

ac to vi ol at io n b y

rai si ng hi s b as e o ffen se lev el fro m 36 to 38 . For t he reas on s s etforth be lo w, we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f Ja m es ’s § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n. I. Between19 84 an d 1 98 9, J am es org an iz edan d o pe rat eda la rg e dru g or ga ni zat io n i n F lo rid a th atem pl oyed 1 75 pe op le an d d is tri bu te d 1 0 t o 1 5 ki lo gr am s o f cra ckco cai ne an d hun dr ed s o f ki lo gr am s o f po wde r co cai ne . In 19 91 , a jury fo un d J am es gu il ty of co ns pi racy to p os se ss with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te co cai ne an d c oc ai ne ba se , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 46 . Prio r to sen te nc in g, a pr ob at io n o ffi cer c om

pl et eda pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt ( “ PSI” ), inwhi ch Ja m es was a ss ig ne d aba 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 ba se off

en se lev el was 3 6 b ecau se James was acco un tabl e fo r m or e th an50 ki lo gr am s o f po wde r co cai ne or m or e th an50 0 g ram s o f cra ckco cai ne . Jam es rece iv eda two -le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r po ss es si ng a weap on , pu rs ua ntto § 2 D1.1 (b )(1 ), an d afou r-l ev el en ha nc em en t fo r hi s l ead ers hi p ro le . Thu s, h is to ta l o ffen se lev el was 4 2. Ba se d o n a n o ffen se lev el of 4 2 a nda cri m in al hi st ory 2 Case: 12-10341 Date Filed: 07/19/2012 Page: 2 of 6cat eg ory

of I V, Jam es ’s gu id el in e ran ge was l ife im pr is on m en t. The di stric t co urt ad op te d the factua l fi nd in gs an d g ui de li ne cal cu la ti on s i n th e PSI, ex cep t tha t the co urt d et erm in edth atJames’s cri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory was II. Bas edon a to ta l o ffen se lev el of 4 2 a nda cri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory of I I, Ja m es ’s gu id el in e ran ge was 3 60 m on th s t o l ife im pr is on m en t. The co urt se nt en cedJames to li fe i m pr is on m en t. InNov em

be r 20 11 , Jam es fil eda pr o s e § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n b as edon Am en dm en t 7 50 , inwhi chhe arg ue d tha t, b ecau se hi s i nd ic tm en t d idno t s pe ci fy th e am ou ntof dru gs in vo lv edinhi s o ffen se , he was eli gi bl e fo r a s en te nc e reduc ti on . Jam es ass ert edth at , un de r Am en dm en t 7 50 , hi s g ui de li ne ran ge was 0 to 24 0 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. The go ve rn m en t re sp on de d tha t the di st ric t co urt la ck edjuri sd ic ti on to gra ntJames’s m ot io n b ecau se , bas edon th e am ountof dru gs in hi s ca se , hi s o ffen se lev el wou ldactua ll y in crea se if re cal cu la te d. J am es rep li ed th atth e co urt wo ul d c omm itan ex p os t f ac to vi ol at io n i f itin crea se d h is gu id el in e ran ge . The di stric t co urt d en ie d J am es ’s § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n. Th e co urt ex pl ai ne d th at , at J am es ’s sen te nc in g, i t fo un d tha t the off en se in vo lv ed10 to 20 ki lo gr am s of crac k c oc ai ne . If th e rev is edSen te nc in g Gu id el in es were ap pl ie d t o J am es , he wou ldha ve a ba se off

en se lev el of 3 8 b as edonth atfin di ng . Thu s, h is ba se

3 Case: 12-10341 Date Filed: 07/19/2012 Page: 3 of 6of

fen se lev el was n otlo weredby Am en dm en t 7 50 , andth e co urt l ack ed juri sd ic ti on to reduc e Ja m es ’s sen te nc e und er § 35 82 (c)( 2) . II.

“ W e rev ie w de no vo a di st ric t co urt’s co nc lu si on s ab ou t the sco pe of i ts le ga l au th or ity

un de r 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ).” Uni te d Sta tes v. J ames , 54 8 F .3d 98 3, 9 84 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). A cou rt m ay on ly m od ify a term

of i m pr is on m en t i n li mit edcir cu m st an ces , in cl ud in g wh ere ade fen da nt“ ha s b eensen te nc edto a te rm of im 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 wered by 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 ot en 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 lt in a lo wer b as e o ffen se lev el an d g ui de li ne s ra ng e.” Ja mes , 54 8 F .3dat 9 86 . Add it io na ll y , eve n wh ere ade fen da ntis res en te nc ed , he d oe s n otrece iv e a de no vo res en te nc in g h eari ng . Uni te d Sta tes v. Br av o , 20 3 F .3d77 8, 7 81 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Thu s, a d is tri ctco urt m ay on ly sub st itut e th e am en de d g ui de li ne . Id. at 78 0. “ All othe r gu id el in e ap pl ic at io n d eci si on s m ad e dur in g the ori gi na l se nt en ci ng rem ai n i nt act .” Id. (qu ot at io n o m itte d) ; se e Uni te d Sta tes v. C othr an , 10 6 F .3d15 60 , 15 63 n.5 (11 thCir . 19 97 ) (h ol di ng th at , ina § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) pr oc eed in g, “ th e d is tri ctco urt was bo un d b y it s p rev io us de te rm in at io n wi th res pe ctto th e num

be r of m ari juan a p lant s tha t wer e rel ev an t t o [the de fen da nt ’s]

4 Case: 12-10341 Date Filed: 07/19/2012 Page: 4 of 6se nt en ce”) .

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 the 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 tha t a b as e o ffen se le ve l o f 38 ap pl ie s wh ere t he re was eit he r 15 0 k il og ram s o r m or e o f co cai ne or 8 .4 ki lo gr am s o r m or e o f co cai ne ba se . Se e id. ; U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1(c )(1 ). In Ja mes , an ap pe al fro m

th e d en ia l o f a § 35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n tha t J am es fil edin20 08 , we hel d th atJames was no t en ti tl edto be res en te nc ed . 54 8 F .3dat 9 86 . W e ex pl ai ne d th at , aft er ap pl y in g the am en dm en t atis su e, hi s b as e o ffen se lev el wou ldbe 38 , whi chwas h ig he r th anth e b as e o ffen se lev el of 3 6 tha t h e was ori gi na ll y ass ig ne d. Id. The di stric t co urt co rrec tl y de ni edJames’s § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n. Un de r th e co urt’s o rig in al dru g- qu an ti ty calcu la ti on s, J am es was h el d re sp on si bl e fo r hu nd red s o f ki lo gr am s o f co cai ne an d a t l eas t t enki lo gr am s o f cra ckco cai ne . App lying Am en dm en t 7 50 to th es e dru g quant it ie s wo ul d g iv e Ja m es a ba se of fen se lev el of 3 8, wh ic h app li es when th ere i s atlea st15 0 k il og ram s o f co cai ne orat l eas t 8 .4 k il og ram s o f co cai ne ba se (cra ckco cai ne ). Se e U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (c)( 1) ; U.S.S.G. App . C, Am en ds . 74 8, 7 50 . After a dd in g i n J am es ’s si x 5 Case: 12-10341 Date Filed: 07/19/2012 Page: 5 of 6le ve ls of e nh an cem en t, h is to ta l o ffen se lev el an d c riminal hi st ory cat eg ory wou ld pr oduc e a g ui de li ne ran ge of l ife im pr is on m en t. Se e U.S.S.G. Ch.5 , Pt.A. Thu s, bo th hi s b as e o ffen se lev el an d g ui de li ne ran ge wou ldbe gre at er af te r ap pl y in g Am en dm en t 7 50 th anth ey were o rig in al ly. Becaus e a d efen da ntis no t en ti tl edto be res en te nc edun de r § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) if ap pl y in g the am en dm en t “ wou ldno t re su ltin a lo wer b as e o ffen se lev el an d g ui de li ne s ra ng e,” the di st ric t co urt co rrec tl y de ni ed Ja m es ’s § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n. Ja mes , 54 8 F .3dat 9 86 . Nex t, J am es ’s arg um en t re ga rd in g a n ex p os t f ac to vi ol at io n i s b el ie d b y th e reco rd , as the di st ric t co urt d idno t ra is e h is ba se off en se lev el . Rath er, the di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly den ie d J am es ’s m ot io n t o a vo idrai si ng hi s o ffen se lev el . Fin al ly, an y othe r is su es James rai se s re ga rd in g the ba si s fo r hi s s en te nc e are witho ut m eri t. Eve n i f Ja m es was e nt it le d t o b e res en te nc ed , th e co urt wo ul d b e b oundby it s o rig in al de te rm in at io n wi th res pe ctto th e ap pl ic ab le dru g qua nt it ie s. Se e Co th ra n , 10 6 F .3dat 1 56 3 n .5. 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 Ja m es ’s § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n. AFFIRMED.

6 Case: 12-10341 Date Filed: 07/19/2012 Page: 6 of 6