FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT MAY 4, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1380 4 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 93-00022 -CR- DF -5 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us AARON MANUEL JOSEPH, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S tate s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( May 4, 200 5) Be fo re BI RC H , CA RN E S an d M A RC U S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Aaron Manuel Joseph , proce eding pro se, appeals the district court’ s denial of hi s m ot io n t o re du ce s en te nc e, in li gh t o f Am en dm en t 5 99 an d U.S.S.G. §2

1B 1. 10( c) , pur suant t o 18 U . S. C. § 35 82( c) (2 ). B ec au se the dis tr ic t c ourt ha d th e dis cr et ionto re duc e Jos ep h’ s se nte nc e an d di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n by

c hoos ing not to reduce his sentence, we AFFIRM . I. BACKG ROUND A j ury convicted Jos eph of conspiracy to com m it bank robb ery

and arm ed bank r obbe ry , in vio latio n of 18 U . S. C. §§ 2 113( a) , ( d) , ( e) and 3 71 ( co unt s 1 and 2); kidnapi ng du ring a bank robbery , in violation o f 18 U. S. C. § 211 3(e) ( count 3); use of af ir earm dur ing and i n r el at ionto a cr im e of vio le nc e, in vio latio n of

18 U . S. C. § 92 4( c) (1 ) (c ount 4) ; and p oss es sio n of

asto le n f ir earm , in vio latio n of

18 U . S. C. § 92 2(

j ) (c ount 5) . R 1- 99, 121 . A cc or din g to the pr es en te nc e inv es tig at ion re port ( “ PS I” ), Jos ep h and thr ee c o- de fe ndants , Ry anJos ep h, Ch ar le s Jo se ph, and W at son D ilb er

t ( co lle ct ive ly

“ the c o- de fe ndants ”) , w er e inv olv ed in a bank robbery during which they

took Con nie Norr is, the bank’ s assistant b ranch m an ag er , hos ta ge . P SI ¶

9. T he c o- de fe ndants e nte re d th e bank arm ed w ithse m iau tom at ic w ea

pons , obt ai ne d $7 9, 805, and u se d N or ri s a s ashi el d whil e ex iti ng the bank. I d. ¶

¶ 9, 13. T he y

f or ce d N or

ri s in to the ge taw ay

c ar , dr ive n by

Jos ep h, an d ahig h- spe ed

c ha se e nsue d, dur ing w hic h th e co -d ef en dants poi nte d th ei r guns at N or ri s. I d. ¶ ¶ 10, 13. D ur ing the c ha se , the c ar be cam e ai rb or

ne and l an de d on a ra ilr oa d tr ac k. Jos ep h and the c o- de fe ndants le ft N or ri s inthe c ar

and f le d on3

foot. T hey

fired sever al shots at officers during the foot pu rsuit butwe re ev en tua lly

c au ght . I d. ¶

¶ 10, 11. Jos ep h r ec ei ve d ase ve n- le ve l i nc re as e in h is of fen se lev el fordi sc ha rg e o f a fi rearm pu rs ua ntto U.S.S.G. § 2 B3 .1(b )(2 )(A). R1 -1 17. T he dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc ed Jos ep h to atot al pr iso n te rm of 270 m onths, w hic h r ef le ct ed c onc ur re nt t er m s of 60 m onths o n c ount

one , 210 m onths o n c ount tw o, 210 m onths o n c ount thr ee , and 1 20 m onths o n c ount f ive , and a c onse cu tiv e te rm of 60 m onths o n c ount

f our . R 1- 121. Jos ep h a

ppe al ed his se nte nc e, arg uin g that the dis tr ic t c ourt “ doub le c ount ed ” w he n it se nte nc ed

him und er § 92 4( c) and U . S. S. G . § 2B 3. 1( b) (2 )( a) . R 1- 134 at 2. W e af fi rm ed his se nte nc e be ca

use the enhanc em en t di d no t i nvol ve the sam e fi re ar m or pos se ssi on f

or w hic h ape na lty w as im pose d un de r § 92 4( c) , and h is s en te nc e co uld be e nhanc ed

ba se d onthe po ss es si on of f

ire arm s b y

hi s co co ns pi rat or s. Jos ep h f ile d am oti on t o m odi fy

his se nte nc e an d a sse rt ed that a s ar es ult

of Am endm ent 599, which applied retroac tively , his offe nse level shou ld have been re duc ed by se ve n le ve ls, w hic h w oul d have r es ult ed in a re duc ed

gui de lin e range of 78- 97 m onths. R 2- 254. H e al so c ont en de d th at w ithA m en dm en t 59 9, his sentence w ouldbe a m inim um of 180 m onth s total. R2-257 at 3. He asserted that Blakely v. W ashingt on, 125 S. C t. 21 (2004), applies to his case and rendersJ oseph’s argu m en t , by way of re ply , was not filed until 19 J uly 2004, one we ek af

ter the 1 district court denie d his moti on. See R2-256; R2-257. 4 application o f 18 U. S. C. § 355 3(a) unconstitu tional as appliedto him . He argued that § 3553 (a ) fa ct or s c oul d no t be use d a s gr ound s to de ny his m oti on. 1 Th e d i s tri ctco u rtd en i edJ o s ep h ’s m o t i o n . Th e c o u rtre ca l cu l at edJ o s ep h ’s offense level and determ ined that, as a r esult of a m andatory m inim um sentence fo r co unt thr ee , the gui de lin e se nte nc e w oul d be 120 m onths o f im pr iso nm en t pl us a co nse cu tiv e 60- m onth te rm f or c ount f our . A s ar es ult , w ithA m en dm en t 59 9, Jos ep h’ s se nte nc e w oul d be atot al of 180 m onths. T he c ourt c onsi de re d th e fa ct or s li ste d in§ 35 53( a) , not ed the na tur e an d c ir cum stanc es of the of fe nse , and state d th at

it w as “ a co nc er

n of [ the ] [ c] ourt tha t a

se nte nc e in this c as e pr ote ct the publ ic from

future cr im es of the defendant as w ell as aff ord adequate deterre nce.” R2 -2 5 6 at4 . Th e c o u rti n d i ca t edth ati twa s n o tre qu i re dt o re du ce J o s ep h ’s sentence and declined to do s o, specifica lly finding th at “ the original sentence as im pose d is appr opr iate c onsi de ri ng the br uta lity of thi s part ic ular of

fe nse , the pr ope nsi ty

f or dange ro us c ondu ct

sho w n by

the de fe ndant, and the ne ce ssi ty to pr ote ct the pub lic f

ro m f urthe r cr im es of

the de fe ndant. ” I d.5 II. D ISCU SSION Joseph argues that the district court erre d in deny ing hi s m otion to m odify his priso n term

by basing its decision on “ the m anner in which the cr im e w as co m m itt ed w he n th e j ur

y did not f ind the [ ag gr av at ing ] f

ac tor be y ond a re as ona

ble doub t. ” Appe llant’ s B ri ef a t 6. Jos ep h a sse rt s th at , in lig ht o f Bl ak el y , the application o f § 3553(a) is uncons titutio nal as applied to hi m and m ay not be used as gr ound s to de ny

his m oti on. H e co nte nds that the dis tr ic t c ourt f ai le d to sho w ho w itwou ldha ve im

po se d t he same sen te nc e ab se ntth e § 2B 3.1 (b )(2 )(A) enhanc em en t and p ro vid ed no a uth or ity j ust if y ing ase nte nc e im

pose d ou tsi de of the gui de lin e range . H e ar gue s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a

ppl ic at ionof

the se ve nlevel firearm

increase wa s not a harm less error because it significantly increased th e ap p l i cab l e g u i d el i n e r an g e. He as s er t s th atal th o u g h th e d i s tri ctco u rt ’s au tho ri ty to m odi fy

his se nte nc e is d isc re tio nary , the c ourt i s no t e nti tle d to abuse it s d is cret io n, an d t ha t h e sh ou ldno t b e p en al iz edforco nduc t al read y co ns id ered . He posits that the district court based its d enial of his m otion on factors for which he wa s already

punis hed. H e asserts that the district court covertly im posed an upw ar d de part

ur e fr om the gui de lin es w ith out

inf orm ing him

of it s in te nti ons to g o ou ts id e o f th e req ui redsen te nc in g ra ng e.6

Jos ep h a lso arg ue s th at

the se ve n- le ve l e nhanc em en t i s no t pr ec lud ed f ro m consideration b ecause he is seeking m odification of his sentence, and he wa s puni she d tw ic e fo r the sam e co nduc t. H e as se rt s th at onc e the dis tr ic t c ourt f

ound that Am endm ent 599 app lied to his sentence, it acknowledged that he wa s se nt en cedin vi ol at io n o f th e la w.

“ W e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n to r ed uc e a se nte nc e pur suant t o 18 U . S. C. § 35 82( c) (2 ) fo r ana buse of dis cr et ion . ” U nit ed

S tate s v. V au tie r, 144 F. 3d 75 6, 759 n. 3 (11th Cir. 1998 ). “ The a buse of discretion st andard has been described as allowing a range of choice for the district court, so long as that choice doe s no t c onst itute ac le ar e rr or of j udgm en t. ” U nit ed

S tate s v. K el ly , 888 F . 2d 732, 745 ( 11th C ir . 198 9) . Ac ourt i s auth or iz ed to m odi fy

ase nte nc e w he n: a defe ndant who has been sentenced to a term of im prisonm ent based on a se nte nc ing r an ge that ha s su bse que ntl y

be enlow er ed

by the Se nte nc ing Co m

m iss ionpur suant t o 28 U . S. C. 994 (o ), upo n m oti on of the de fe ndant . . . the c ourt m ay r ed uc e the te rm

of im pr iso nm en t, af te r co nsi de ri ng the f

ac tor s se t f

orth i n se ct ion355 3( a) to the e xte nt that the y are appl ic ab le , if

suc h ar ed

uc tio n is c onsi ste nt w ith ap pli ca ble pol ic y state m en ts i ssu ed

by the S en te nc ing Co m

m iss ion . 18 U. S. C. § 358 2(c)( 2). Be fo re de ci din g to r ed

uc e a de fe ndant’ s se nte nc e unde r § 35 82( c) (2 ), the court m ust: (1) “ subs titute the am ended guid eline range for the originallyapplied gui de lin e range and d et er m ine w ha t se nte nc e it w oul d have im pose d;” and ( 2)7

“ consider the factors listed in § 35 53(a) and determ ine whether or not to reduce the de fe ndant’ s or igi na l se nte nc e. ” V au tie r, 144 F . 3d at 76 0. “ Bo th the langua ge o f § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ) a n dth i s ci rc u i t ’s p re ce d en ti n d i ca t e t h atth e s en t en ci n g co u rt ’s pow er to re duc e a se nte nc e is d isc re tio nary . ” I d. S ec tio n 35 53( a) pr ovi de s th at , in im posin g a sentence, the district court m ust cons ider fac tors includ ing th e nature an d c ir cum stanc es of

the of fe nse , and the ne ed

f or the se nte nc e to p ro te ct

the pu bl ic fro m

fur th er cr im es of t he de fen da nt . 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(1 ), (2 )(C) . G uid el ine s A m en dm en t 59 9 c lari fi ed the pol ic y

a ga ins t do ubl e- co unt ing a fi re ar m und er 18 U . S. C. § 92 4( c) , and unde r a w ea pon enhanc em en t f

or the un de rlyin g o ffen se gu id el in e. See U.S.S.G. App . C, Am en dm en t 5 99 (20 00 ). Am endm ent 599 p rovides that [i ] f a se nte nc e unde r thi s gu ide lin e is i m pose d inc onj unc tio n w itha se nte nc e fo r anund er ly ing of fe nse , do n ot a

ppl y any spe ci fi c of

fe nse charac teristic for possession , brandish ing, use, or discharge of an explo siv e or

f ir earm w he n de te rm ini ng the se nte nc e fo r the unde rl y ing of

fe nse . Ase nte nc e unde r thi s gu ide lin e ac co unt s f or any

. . . w ea pon enhanc em en t f

or the und er ly ing of

fe nse of c onvi ct ion , includi ng any

such enhancem ent that would applybased on conduct fo r w hic h th e de fe ndant i s a cc ount ab le und er § 1B 1. 3 ( Re le vant Co nduc t) . D o no t a

ppl y any w ea pon enhanc em en t i n th e gui de lin e for the underly ing offense, f or exam ple, if (A ) a c o-defendant, a s part of the j ointl y

undertaken crim inal activity , possessed a fire arm differe nt from

the one for which the defendant was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (c). . . .8

U . S. S. G . App. C, A m en dm en t 59 9 ( 2000 ). A m en dm en t 59 9 is r etro ac tiv el y applicable. S ee U .S .S .G . § 1B1. 10(a), (c) . A s apr el im inary

m atte r, U nit ed

S tate s v. Bo oke r, 125 S . Ct . 738 , ___ (2 005) , w hic h e xte nde d th e hol din g of Bl ak el y to the f ed er al se nte nc ing gui de lin es , is not

appl ic ab le in thi s c as e be ca use § 35 82( c) (2 ) au tho ri ze s on ly m odi fi catio n of

a se nte nc e as ar es ult

of an am en dm en t t o th e gui de lin es m ad e re tr oa ct ive by

the S en te nc ing Co m

m iss ionand i s no t a

m eans t o a tta ck

the constitu tionalit y

of a sentence. T o the extent Jos eph argues that use of § 355 3(a) is uncon stitut ional, Booker does not affect a court’ s ability

to consid er the f

actors of § 3553 (a) in determ ining an appropriate sentence. See Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 757 (s tatin g th at

c ourts c an“ ta ilo r [a ] se nte nc e in l igh t of . . . statut or

y c onc er ns” other than the gui delines ranges). T he dis tr ic t c ourt ha d th e dis cr et ionto re duc e Jos ep h’ s se nte nc e an d di d no t m ake a c lear e rror of j udgm ent by deny ing hi s m otion . The c ourt first determ ined that Jo se ph’ s se nte nc e w oul d be atot al of 180 m onths o f im

pr iso nm en t w ith A m en dm en t 59 9. S ee R2 -2 56 at 2- 3. A ddi tio na lly , the r ec or d r ef le ct s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt c onsi de re d th e fa ct or s li ste d in§ 35 53( a) in de te rm ini ng whe the r to re duc e Jos ep h’ s se nte nc e, spe ci fi ca lly dis cu ssi ng the f

ac tor s r el at ed

to pr ote ct ing th e p ub li c fro m

a de fen da nt ’s fut ur e cri m es an d a ffo rd in g a de qu at e d et erre nc e.9

The c ourt properly

rec ogni zed that it wa s not required to reduce Joseph’s sentence an d op te d no t t o do so, c onc lud ing that hi s or igi na l se nte nc e w as m or e ap pr opr iate g i v en th e n at u re o f t h e o ff en s e a n dth e n ee dt o p ro t ec tth e p ub l i c f ro m J o s ep h ’s fu rth er cr im es . III. C ONC LUS ION Be ca use the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n is not ac le ar e rr or of j udgm en t, the co ur t d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y de nyin g J os ep h’s m ot io n. Acco rd in gl y , we AF FIRM.