FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT FEB RUARY 26, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 11877 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o ck etN o . 9 8 -0 6 2 1 2 -C R -W JZ U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s M I C H A E L R O B E R T L E E , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 26, 2008) B efo re A N D E R S O N , C A RN E S an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: M ic h a e l R o b e rt L e e ap p e a ls p r o s e th e d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n to r e d u c e h is2

s e nt e nc e , w hi c h he f

i l e d pur s ua ntt o 18 U . S . C . § 3582( c ) ( 2) . H e c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d byde ny i ng hi s m ot i on f orm odi f i c a t i on of

s e nt e nc e be c aus e the N o v e m b e r1 , 2 0 0 0 , am e n d m e n ts to th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s , s p e c if ic a lly A m e ndm e nt s 599 a nd 600, r e tr oa c t i ve l yappl yt o ba rs e nt e nc e e nha nc e m e nt s he r e c e i ve d. W e r evi ew a di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on no tt o g ranta s ent ence re du ct i on un der 18 U . S . C . § 3582( c ) ( 2) onl yf ora n abus e of

di s c r e t i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M or e no, 42 1 F . 3d 12 17 , 12 19 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). T he l aw -of- the-c as e doctri ne prov i des that

“ an i ss ue deci ded aton e s t age of a c as e i s bi nd i ng atl at erst ages of the sa m e c as e. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. E s c oba r - U rr e go, 110 F . 3d 1556, 1560 ( 11th C i r . 1997) . U nde rthe doc tr i ne , a“ l e ga l de c i s i on m a de a tone s t a ge of the l i t i ga t i on, unc ha l l e nge d i n a s ubs e que ntappe a l w he n the opportuni tye xi s t e d, be c om e s the l a w of the c a s e f

or f utur e s t a ge s of

the s a m e l i t i ga t i on, a nd the pa rt i e s a r e de e m e d t o ha ve w a i ve d the r i g h tt o c h a l l e n g e th a td e c i s i o n a tal a t e rt i m e . ” I d . We m a yd e v i a t e f r o m th e l a wof - the - c a s e doc tr i ne w he n: ( 1) as ubs e que nttr i a l i nvol ve s s ubs t a nt i a l l ydi f f e r e nt e v id e n c e , ( 2 ) c o n tr o llin g la w h a s b e e n c h a n g e d b ya n in te rv e n in g d e c is io n th a t is b i n d i n g p reced en t , o r (3 ) th e d eci si o n w as cl earl y erro n eo u s an d a m an i fest in ju s tic e w o u ld r e s u lt f

r o m n o t c h a n g in g it. I d . a t 1 5 6 1 .3

L e e ’ s § 3582( c ) ( 2) m ot i on w a s ba s e d on the s a m e a r gum e nt s he uns uc c e s s f

ul l ym a de i n a n e a r l i e r§ 3582( c ) ( 2) m ot i on i n thi s s a m e unde r l y i ng c r i m i na l c a s e . T he di s tr i c tc ourtde ni e d L e e ’ s f i r s t§ 3582( c ) ( 2) m ot i on on D e c e m be r21, 2004, a nd L e e ne ve rf i l e d an appe a l f

r om tha tde ni a l . H e ha s not pres ent ed any new evi dence, i dent i fi ed a new l egal deci si on , or pers uaded u s that the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de c i s i on on hi s e a r l i e rm ot i on w a s c l e a r l ye rr one ous a nd re sul t ed i n a m ani fe stm i sc arri age of j ust i ce . S ee E sc ob ar -U rr ego, 11 0 F . 3d at 1 5 6 0 . A l t e rna t i ve l y , L e e ’ s m ot i on l a c ke d m e r i ta ny w a y . A m e ndm e nt600, a s the di s tr i c tc ourtnot e d, i s notr e tr oa c t i ve l yappl i c abl e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A rm s tr ong, 347 F . 3d 90 5, 90 7– 08 (11th C i r. 20 03 ); U . S . S . G . § 1 B 1. 10 (a ) & (c ). L ee ar gu es that A m e n d m e n t 5 9 9 , w h ic h is r e tr o a c tiv e , m a k e s ad if f e r e n c e b e c au s e it w o u ld pr e c l ude hi m f

r om r e c e i vi ng the f

our - l e ve l i nc r e a s e i n of

f e ns e l e ve l f

orus i ng or p o s s e s s in g af

ir e a rm in c o n n e c tio n w ith h is f e lo n yo f f e n s e u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 2 K 2 .1 (b )( 5 ). H o w ev er , th at en h an ce m en t w as n o t ap p li ed to ca lcu late L ee ’s o f f e n s e le v e l a n y w a y , b e c au s e h e w a s s e n te n c e d a s ac a r e e ro f f e n d e rp u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 4 B 1 .1 , th e ap p lic a tio n o f w h ic h L e e d o e s n o t c h a lle n g e . I n th is s itu a tio n , b e c au s e § 2 K 2 .1 ( b ) ( 5 ) h a d n o e f f e c t A m e n d m e n t 5 9 9 is n o t im p lic a te d . S e e A rm s tr ong, 347 F . 3d a t908.4

L e e ’ s a r gum e nttha the s houl d w i n be c aus e the gove rnm e nta nd pr oba t i on o f f ic e rf a ile d to c o m p lyw ith th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s b r ie f in g d e a d lin e is f

r iv o lo u s . AF F I RME D.