FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T J UNE 12, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 16 05 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 5 :9 0- cr-0 00 03 -CAR- 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 JERR Y JEROM E ANDERSON,
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 ur t for th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of Ge or gi a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J un e 1 2, 2 01 2)
Befo re MAR CUS, J ORDAN and ANDERSON, Circu it Ju dg es
. PER CURI AM:Je rry Je ro m e And ers on ap pe al s pr o se th e di st ric t co u r t ’s d e ni al of hi s 18

U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n to m od ify or red uc e h is ter m of im pr is on m en t bas ed on Am en dm en t 75 0 t o t he U.S. Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es . He arg ue s t ha t: (1) th e di st ric t

co ur t abu se d it s di sc ret io n by de nyin g hi s m ot io n wi th ou t s ta ti ng it s re as on s fo r th e de ni al , fai li ng to us e th e 20 11 Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s in cal cu la ti ng hi s ne w gu id el in e

ran ge , an d fai li ng to co ns id er th e fact or s un de r 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a); an d (2 ) a ne w
pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t (“ PSI” ) an d se nt en ci ng he ari ng are ne ces sa ry
. Afte r th or ou gh rev ie w, we affi rm
. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on whe th er to red uc e a de fen da nt ’s se nt en ce
pu rs ua nt to 18 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v. Bro wn, 33 2 F.3d 13 41 , 13 43 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 03 ). Add it io na ll y , we rev ie w de no vo th e di st ric t

co ur t’s le ga l co nc lu si on s ab ou t th e sc op e of it s au th or it y u nd er th e se nt en ci ng
gu id el in es an d rev ie w it s fact fin di ng s fo r cl ear erro r. Uni te d S t at es v. Dav is , 58 7
F.3 d 1 30 0, 1 30 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9)

.

“ Und er 18 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) , a di st ric t co ur t ha s di sc ret io n to red uc e th e te rm of im pr is on m en t of an al r e a dy in carc erat ed de fen da nt whe n th at de fen da nt was

s e nt en ced ba se d on a se nt en ci ng ran ge th at was su bs eq ue nt ly lo wered by t h e Sen te nc in g Co m

m is si on pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 99 4( o) .” Uni te d St at es v. Brav o, 20 3 F.3 d 77 8, 78 0 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 00 ). Howev er, § 35 82 (c)( 2) do es no t gr an t th e di st ric t

2co ur t juri sd ic ti on to reco ns id er al l or ig in al se nt en ci ng de te rm in at io ns
. Id

. at 78 1. In

fact , “ 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 w i t h th e so le

ex cep ti on of th e gu id el in e ran ge t h a t h a s be en am en de d si nc e th e or ig in al

se nt en ci ng .” Id

. Mo reo ve r , th e di st ric t co ur t m ay no t m od ify an im po se d te rm of
im pr is on m en t up on a § 35 82 (c)( 2) m ot i o n u nl es s th e de fen da nt ’s se nt en ci ng ran ge

was su bs eq ue nt ly lo wered by an am en dm en t to th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s. U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .10 (a)( 2) (B).
Am en dm en t 75 0 be cam e effe ct iv e on N o ve m be r 1, 20 11 , an d is , in rel ev an t
pa rt t o And ers on ’s c la im , r et ro act iv el y ap pl ic ab le

. U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 0( c); U.S.S.G. App . C , Am en d. 75 0. The m ul ti -p art am en dm en t re-p ro m ul ga te d as pe rm an en t th e
te m po rary, em erg en cy am en dm en t th at im pl em en te d th e eme r g e n c y di rect iv e in

se ct io n 8 of th e Fai r Sen te nc in g Act of Aug us t 3, 20 10 , Pu b. L. No. 11 1- 22 0, 12 4
St at

. 23 72

. U.S.S.G. App

. C, Am en d. 75 0, Rea so n fo r Am en dm en t. Am on gs t ot he r th in gs , th e am en dm en t rai se d th e am ou nt of crac k co cai ne ne ces sa ry un de r U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1(c ) to rece iv e a ba se of fen se le ve l of 38 fro m 4.5 ki lo gr am s to 8.4 ki lo gr am s. U.S.S.G. App . C, Am en ds . 74 8, 7 50

. The reco rd be fo re us rev eal s th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d in fact pr ov id e it s reas on fo r de nyin g And ers on ’s m ot io n by sa y in g th at Am en dm en t 75 0 “ di d no t effect iv el y red uc e t h e de fen da nt ’s gu id el in e ran ge .” And in de ed , th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y

3de te rm in ed th at , de sp it e th e am en dm en t to th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s, And ers on ’s

gu id el in e ran ge rem ai ne d unc ha nge d. A lth ough Am en dm en t 75 0 rai se d th e m in im um

am ou nt of crac k co c a i n e n e ces sa ry to rece iv e a ba se of fen se le ve l of 38 fro m 4.5
ki lo gr am s to 8.4 ki lo gr am s, th e am en dm en t di d no t affe ct And ers on ’s ba se of fen se le ve l of 38 be cau se , as th e co ur t ha d pr ev io us ly fo un d, And ers on ’s c o n v i c t io ns in vo lv ed 15 ki lo gr ams o r m or e of crac k co cai ne , whi ch fel l ab ov e th e am en de d

m in im um of 8.4 k i lo gr am s. See U.S.S.G. App

. C, Am en d. 75 0, Rea so n fo r Am en dm en t. Si nc e And ers on ’s ba se of fen se le ve l rem ai ne d at 38 -- pl u s 4 po in ts
pu rs ua nt to U.S.S.G. § 2 D 1

. 5 (a)( 1) be cau se he was co nv ic te d of op erat in g a

co nt in ui ng cri m in al en te rp ris e, res ul ti ng in a to ta l of fen se le ve l of 42 -- al o ng wit h

a cri m in a l hi st or y cat eg or y of III, th e co ur t co rrec tl y fo un d th at hi s gu id el in e ran ge

rem ai ne d un ch an ge d at 36 0 m on th s’ to li fe im pr is on m en t. See U.S.S.G. Sen te nc in g Tab le

. Nor di d th e di st ric t co ur t err by fai li ng to co ns id er th e fact or s un de r 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a), be cau se th e co ur t was on ly req ui red to an al y ze th os e f a c t o r s if it
de te rm in ed th at Am en dm en t 75 0 h a d t he effe ct of lo weri ng And ers on ’s gu id el in e

ran ge , whi ch it di d n ot . See 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) ; U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 0( a)(2 )(B)

. Fi na ll y , to th e ex te nt th at th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed And ers on ’s req ue st fo r a ne w PSI, An de rs on ha s n ot sh own th at su ch de ni al was i n e rro r. Desp it e h is co nc lu so ry

4al le ga ti on th at a ne w PSI an d s e n t e nc in g he ari ng are ne ces sa ry du e to “ fact s an d

arg um en ts no t co ns id ered in th e or ig in al se nt en ce th at are cru ci al to th e ne w

se nt en ci ng sc he m e,” he fai ls to de sc rib e th es e fact s an d arg um en ts or ev en es ta bl is h
th at th ey ex is t. Fu rth er, And ers on was no t en ti tl ed to a ne w PSI or se nt en ci ng he ari ng be cau se , whe n m od ifyin g a se nt en ce un de r § 35 82 (c)( 2) , al l or ig in a l se nt en ci ng de te rm in at io ns rem ai n un ch an ge d sa ve th e am en de d gu id el in e ran ge , whi ch th e co ur t

wa s a b l e t o c al cu la te wit ho ut a ne w P SI or se nt en ci ng he ari ng
. Brav o, 20 3 F.3 d at
78 1. 1
AFFIRMED.

What’s more, Ande rson neve r re quested a new se ntencing hear ing in the district c ourt, 1 and he ha s not shown that the court’s f ailure to g rant such a

hear ing sua

sponte was in er

ror, much less plain er

ror. See United States v. Moreno, 421 F .3d 1217, 1220 (11th Cir. 2005) (holding that, when a

defe ndant fa ils to raise an e rror in district court, we ma

y not corre ct the err or unless it is plain, affe cts substantial rig hts, and seriously aff ects the f airne ss, integr ity , or public reputa tion of judicial proce eding s).
5