FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T J AN 25, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 10 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 2 :0 2- cr-0 00 07 -MEF- CSC- 1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us
JI MM Y CARTER, JR , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l 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 ur t for th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of Al ab am a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J an ua ry 25 , 20 11 )
Befo re HULL, MARCUS an d M ARTIN, Cir cu it Ju dg es

. PER CURI AM:
Ji m m y Cart er, Jr ., a fed eral pr is on er co nv ic te d of se ve ral dr ug of fen se s
in vo lv in g co cai ne hydro ch lo rid e an d co cai ne ba se , ap pe al s pr o se th e di st ric t co ur t’sde ni al of hi s m ot io n to red uc e hi s to ta l se nt en ce, pu rs ua nt to 18 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2)

.

On ap pe al : (1 ) th e go ve rn m en t arg ue s th at we la ck juri sd ic ti on ov er th is ap pe al ; an d (2 ) Cart er arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n b y de nyin g hi s § 35 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) m ot io n to red uc e hi s se nt en ce, pu rs ua nt to Am en dm en t 70 6 of th e
Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es . After c aref ul rev ie w, we affi rm

. W e rev ie w juri sd i c t i o n a l is su es de no vo

. Uni te d St at es v. Lop ez, 56 2 F.3 d

13 09 , 13 11 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 09 ). I n § 35 82 (c)( 2) pr oc eed in gs , we rev ie w a di st ric t

co ur t’s co nc lu si on s ab ou t t he sco pe of i ts leg al au th or it y de no vo

. Uni te d St at es v.
Ja m es , 54 8 F .3d 98 3, 9 84 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ).

As an in it ia l m at te r, we reject th e go ve rn m en t’s cl a i m th at be cau se Cart er’s

no ti ce of ap pe al was un ti m el y , we do no t ha ve juri sd ic ti on ov er th is ap pe al

. A
de fen da nt ’s no ti ce o f ap pe al in a cri m in al cas e m us t be fil ed in th e di st ric t co ur t n o
la te r th an 14 da y s aft er th e ch al le ng ed or de r is en te red

. Fed .R.App .P. 4( b) (1 )(A); se e
Uni te d St at es v. Fai r, 32 6 F.3 d 13 17 , 13 18 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 03 ) (h ol di ng th at th e ru le s

go ve rn in g cri m in al cas es ap pl y to § 35 82 (c)( 2) pr oc eed in gs ). Unl ik e ci vi l ap pe al

ru le s, th e de ad li ne in Ru le 4( b) fo r cri m in al de fen da nt s is no t juri sd ic ti on al be cau se
it is no t gr ou nd ed in a fed eral st at ut e. Lop ez, 56 2 F.3 d at 13 11 -1 3. Nev ert he le ss , we

m us t ap pl y Ru le 4( b) ’s ti m e li m it s up on ob jecti on by th e go ve rn m en t to a de fen da nt ’s

un ti m el y no ti ce o f a p p e a l, whi ch th e go ve rn m en t m ay rai se fo r th e fir st ti m e in it s

2br ie f on ap pe al

. Id

. at 13 13 -1 4. Und er th e “ pr is on m ai lb ox ru le ,” a pr o se pr is on er’s

co ur t fil in gs are con si de red fil ed on th e da te th ey are del iv ered to pr is on au th or it ie s

to be m ai le d. W il li am s v. McNe il , 55 7 F.3 d 12 87 , 12 90 n.2 (1 1t h Ci r.), cert

. de ni ed , 12 9 S.Ct

. 27 47 (2 00 9)

. Abs en t ev id en ce to th e co nt rary, th ere is a pr es um pt io n th at

a pr is on er de li ve red hi s pl e a d i n g s t o p r is on of fic ia ls on “ th e da y he si gn ed it .”

W as hi ng to n v . Uni te d S ta te s, 2 43 F.3d 12 99 , 13 01 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ).
Alt ho ug h no t ex pr es sl y au th or iz ed by th e Fed eral Ru le s of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e,

a m ot io n fo r reco ns id erat io n of an ap pe al ab le cri m in al or de r wil l to ll th e t i me fo r
fil in g a no ti ce o f ap pe al , and th e ti m e wil l b eg in to run an ew if su ch m ot io n i s fi le d
wit h i n t h e ap pe al pe rio d. Uni te d St at es v. Diet er, 42 9 U.S. 6, 8- 9 (1 97 6) ; Uni te d

St at es v. Vi cari a, 96 3 F.2 d 14 12 , 14 13 -1 4 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 2) . Here, th e d is tri ct co ur t
de ni ed Cart er’s § 35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n o n M a y 7 , 20 10

. Cart er fil ed a m ot io n fo r

reco ns id erat io n or reh eari ng , si gn ed on May 17 , wit hi n th e 14

- d ay ap pe al pe rio d.
Fed .R.App .P. 4 (b )(1 )(A); W as hi ng to n, 24 3 F.3 d at 13 01

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed

Cart er’s m ot io n fo r reco ns id erat io n or reh e a r i n g o n Ju ne 15

. Cart er th en fil ed a

no ti ce of ap pe al , s i g n e d on Ju ne 22 , wit hi n th e ne w 14 -d ay ap pe al pe rio d.

3Fed .R.App .P. 4( b) (1 )(A); W as hi ng to n, 24 3 F.3 d at 13 01

. Co ns eq u e n t ly, Cart er’s

no ti ce o f ap pe al was t im el y
. 1

Turn in g to t h e m eri ts , we are un pe rs ua de d by Cart er’s cl ai m th at th e di st ric t

co ur t er red by den y in g h is § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n. Un de r § 3 58 2( c)(2 ):

in th e cas e of a de fen da nt who ha s be en s e n t e n ced to a te rm of im pr is on m en t ba se d on a se nt e n c i n g ran ge th at ha s su bs eq ue nt ly b een lo wered by th e Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on

. . . th e co ur t m ay red uc e th e te rm of im pr is on m en t, af

te r co ns id eri ng th e fac to rs se t fo rth in se ct io n 35 53 (a) to th e ex te nt th at th ey ar e a p p l i cab le , if su ch a red uc ti on is
co ns is te nt w i t h ap pl ic ab le po li cy st at em en ts is su ed by th e Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on

. 18 U.S

. C

. § 3 5 8 2( c)(2 ). Thu s, § 35 82 (c)( 2) do es no t pe rm it a red uc ti on in a
de fen da nt ’s im

pr is on m en t t erm if a ret ro act iv e am en dm en t d oe s n ot ha ve th e eff ect
of lo weri ng th e de fen da nt ’s ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es ran ge

. Id .; U.S.S.G. §

1B 1. 1 0 ( a ) ( 2 )

. Mo reo ve r, a § 35 82 (c)( 2) pr oc eed in g do es no t co ns ti tu te a de no vo

res en te nc in g an d “ al l or ig in al se nt en ci ng de te rm in at io ns rem ai n un ch an ge d wit h th e

I n United States v. Phill ips, 597 F.3d 1190 (11th Cir. 2010), the district court had initially 1 g rante d § 3582(c) (2) relief and reduc ed the defe ndant’s sentenc e to 324 months’ imprisonment, but afte r the g overnme nt filed a motion for rec onsideration, it g rante d the go v er n m en t ’s motion and reimposed the defe ndant’s orig inal sentenc e of 360 months’ imprisonment. I d. at 1192-94. On appea l, we conclude d that the district court did not have jurisdiction afte r seven day s had passed to modify and vacate Phill ips’s 324-month sentenc e imposed on rese ntencing , in part beca use “Section 3582(c) (1)( B) does not include a ten-da y motion for rec onsideration as an exception to the sentenc e modification prohibition.” I d. at 1200-01. Notably , the g overnme nt has not arg ued in this case that based on Phill ips, Carter ’s motion for rec onsideration did not toll the time to appea l since the district court lacke d jurisdiction to rule on it. But in any event, the district court here initially denied § 3582 relief , unlike in Phill ips, wher e the district court ini tiall y gra n t ed § 3582 relief and the motion for
rec onsideration ther efor e aske d the cour t to corre ct a r esente ncing err or.
4so le ex cep ti on of th e gu id el in e ran ge th at ha s be en am en de d si n c e th e or ig in al

se nt en ci ng .” Uni te d Stat es v. Brav o, 20 3 F.3d 77 8, 78 1 (11 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (em ph as is

om it te d)

. The Sen te nc in g Co m

m is si o n h a s made bo th Am en dm en ts 70 6 an d 48 4

ret ro act iv e. U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 0( c); se e Uni te d St at es v. Arm st ro ng , 34 7 F.3 d 90 5, 90 9 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 03 ) (n ot in g th a t a S e n t en ci ng Gui de li ne s am en dm en t m ay be ap pl ie d

ret ro act iv el y on ly whe n it is ex pr es sl y li st ed in § 1B 1.1 0( c)). Am en dm en t 70 6, m ad e

ret ro act iv e by Am en dm en t 71 3 in 20 08 , red uc ed th e ba se of fen se le ve l by two le ve ls
fo r m os t coca in e ba se of

fen se s. U.S.S.G. App

. C, Am en ds

. 70 6, 71 3; Uni te d Stat es

v. Dou gl as , 57 6 F.3 d 12 16 , 12 18 ( 1 1t h Ci r. 20 09 ). On th e ot he r ha nd , Am en dm en t
48 4, whi ch th e Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on m ad e effe ct iv e on Nov em be r 1, 19 93 , ha d th e
effe ct of ex cl ud in g cert ai n su bs ta nc es fro m a de fen da nt ’s dr ug qu an ti ty cal cu la ti on

. U.S.S.G. App . C, Am en d. 4 84

. Fi rs t, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in fin di ng th at Am en dm en t 70 6 di d no t lo wer
Cart er’s ap pl ic ab le gu i d e l i n es ran ge

. At hi s or ig in al se nt en ci ng he ari ng , th e co ur t
ad op te d th e PSI an d fo un d Cart er res po ns ib le fo r at le as t 30 ki lo gr am s of c oc ai ne
ba se

. Bec au se Cart er’s o f f e n s e i nv ol ve d m or e th an 4.5 ki lo gr am s of co cai ne ba se , Am en dm en t 70 6 di d no t lo wer hi s ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es ran ge

. Uni te d St at es v.
Da v is , 58 7 F.3 d 13 00 , 13 03 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 09 ) (n ot in g th at Am en dm en t 70 6 di d no t

5lo wer de fen da nt s’ ba se of fen se le ve ls if th ey are res po ns ib le fo r m or e th an 4.5
ki lo gr am s of co cai ne ba se ) , c ert

. de ni ed , 13 0 S.Ct

. 21 29 (2 01 0)

. Acco rd in gl y , th e
di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y de te rm in ed th at Cart er was in el ig ib le fo r § 35 82 ( c ) ( 2 ) r e li ef

un de r Am en dm en t 7 06 . U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 0( a)(2 ).

I n t e r ms of Am en dm en t 48 4, be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Cart er i n
20 03 , Am en dm en t 48 4, w h i c h be cam e effe ct iv e in Nov em be r 19 93 , is no t a

“ su bs eq ue nt ” am en dm en t wit hi n th e m ean in g of § 35 82 (c)( 2)

. Thu s, th e di st ric t co ur t
di d no t ha ve au th or it y to red uc e Cart er’s se nt en ce un de r Am en dm en t 48 4. 18 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) ; Uni te d St at es v. St os se l, 34 8 F.3 d 13 20 , 13 22 n. 2 ( 1 1 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (s ta ti ng th at a m ot io n co ul d be ad dr es se d un de r § 35 82 (c)( 2) on ly if th e ap pe ll an t was

arg ui ng th at hi s se nt en ce sh ou ld be m od ifi ed “ ba se d on a su bs eq ue nt se nt e n c in g

gu id el in e am en dm en t” ).

Fi na ll y , to th e ex te nt th at Cart er ch al le ng es th e di st r i c t c o ur t’s fin di ng at

se nt en ci ng th at hi s of

fen se s in vo lv ed at le as t 30 ki lo gr am s of co cai ne b a s e, hi s

arg um en t fai ls be cau se a § 35 82 (c)( 2) pr oc eed in g is no t a de no vo res en te nc in g, an d

“ al l or ig in al se nt en ci ng de te rm in at io ns rem ai n un ch an ge d wit h th e so le ex cep ti on of
th e gu id el in e ran ge th at ha s be en am en de d si nc e th e or ig in al se nt en ci ng .” Brav o, 20 3

F.3 d at 78 1. Co ns eq ue nt ly, be cau se Cart er do es n o t po in t to an ap pl ic ab le

ame n d men t th at wou ld al lo w hi m to ch al le ng e th e di st ric t co ur t’s dr ug qu an ti ty

6cal cu la ti on , he can no t ch al le ng e th at fin di ng th ro ug h a § 35 82 (c)( 2) pr oc eed in g. Id

.

Si m il arl y , Cart er’s cl ai m t h a t th e co ur t vi ol at ed App ren di v. New Je rs ey , 53 0 U.S.

46 6 (2 00 0) , is un av ai li ng be cau se App ren di di d no t in vo lv e a ret ro act iv el y ap pl ic ab le

gu id el in e am en dm en t an d it d i d n o t pr ov id e an in de pe nd en t juri sd ic ti on al ba si s to
red uc e Cart er’s s en te nc e. See Un it ed Sta te s v . Mo ren o, 4 21 F.3d 12 17 , 12 20 (11 th
Ci r. 20 05 ) (ex pl ai ni ng t h a t , be cau se § 35 82 (c)( 2) do es no t pr ov id e a ba si s fo r a de

no vo res en te nc in g, Su pr em e Co ur t d e c is io ns by th em se lv es do no t pr ov id e §

35 82 (c)( 2) rel ie f be cau se th ey are no t ret ro act iv el y ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es

am en dm en ts ). 2

AFFIRMED.

Be cause Carter does not ch al l en ge o n appea l the district court’s denial of his motion for 2
re co nsideration, he has abandone d any arg ument in that respe ct. See United States v. Nea ly , 232 F.3d 825, 830- 31 (11th Cir. 2000) (noting that issues not raised on a ppeal a re a bandoned)

. 7