[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 11 35 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 9 :0 5- cr-8 01 00 -WPD-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us GEORGE E. SMITH, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di stric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Au gu st14 , 20 12 ) Befo re BARKETT, PRYOR an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t Jud ge s. PER CURI AM: Geo rg e E. Sm ith, p ro ceed in g pr o s e , app eal s fr om th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l of hi s m ot io n t o re du ce h is sen te nc e u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) .

Case: 12-11355 Date Filed: 08/14/2012 Page: 1 of 6In20 05 , Sm it h was in di ct edforpo ss es si on with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te 5 g ram s

orm or e o f cra ckco cai ne withi n 1 00 0 fe etof a n e le m en ta ry sch oo l, i n v io la ti on of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1 a nd86 0( a) (C ou nt1); po ss es si on with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te co cai ne withi n 1 00 0 fe etof a n e le m en ta ry sch oo l, i n v io la ti onof t he same (Cou nt 2) ; an d p os se ss io n o f a fi rearm in furth eran ce o f a dru g- tra ffi ck in g c rime, in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (c)( 1) (A) (Co un t 3 ). The g ov ern m en t fi le d n ot ic e o f it s i nt en t t o re ly on S m it h’s p rio r co nv ic ti on s t o s eekanen ha nc edsen te nc e, pu rs ua ntto 21 U.S.C. § 8 51 . Fo ll owi ng a jury tria l, Sm it h was co nv ic te d o f po ss es si on with i nt en t t o di st rib ut e le ss th an5 g ram s o f cra ckco cai ne withi n 1 00 0 fe etof a n e le m en ta ry sc ho ol , a les se r in cl ud edoff en se of C ou nt1, an d t he Co un t 2 ch arg e o f po ss es si on wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te po wde r co cai ne withi n 1 00 0 fe etof a n e le m en tary sch oo l. He was acqui tt edof t he fir earm off en se in Co un t 3 . At s en te nc in g, t he di st ric t co urt d et erm in edth atSm it h’s o ffen se lev el was 26 ba se d o n the am ou ntof d ru gs in vo lv ed , bu t thi s l ev el was i nc reas edto 34 un de r U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1 b ecau se Sm it h qua li fie d a s a c aree r of fen de r. Sm it h’s s ta tu s as

1 a car eer o ffen de r al so in crea se d h is cri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory fro m III t o VI, an d pl acedhi m

in a gu id el in e ran ge of 2 62 to 32 7 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. At S m it h’s Smit h conce ded that he qua lified as a c are er of fende r. 1 2 Case: 12-11355 Date Filed: 08/14/2012 Page: 2 of 6reque st , th e co urt d ep art eddo wnwar d i n t he cri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory to lev el V, whi chy ie ld eda gu id el in e ran ge of 2 35 to 29 3 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. The co urt se nt en cedSm it h t o c on cu rren t t erm s o f 23 5 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Thi s co urt affi rm edSm it h’s co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es on di rectap pe al . Uni te d Sta tes v. Smi th , 20 9 F . App ’x 90 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . In20 12 , Sm it h fi le d t he in st an t m ot io n t o c orrectsen te nc e u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c), arg ui ng th atAm en dm en t 7 50 to th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es , whi ch

2 ch an ge d t he qu an ti ti es of c rackap pl ic ab le to th e sp eci fic off en se lev el s u nd er the drug qu an ti ty tab le s, en ti tl edhi m to a le ss er s en te nc e. He fu rth er as se rte d t ha t h e was eli gi bl e fo r th e reduc ti on be cau se he was n otsen te nc edas acare er o ffen de r aft er the di stric t co urt h adde pa rte d d own wardin hi s cr im in al hi st ory cat eg ory . He reque st edth athe be res en te nc edin acco rd an ce wi th Am en dm en t 7 50 an d t ha t h e be gi ve n c on si de rat io n fo r hi s re habi li ta ti ve effo rts whi le in carc erat ed . The di stric t co urt d en ie d t he m ot io n, fi rs t fi nd in g t ha t Am en dm en t 7 50 di d no t ap pl y to Sm ith’s ca se be cau se Sm ith’s s en te nc e was co nt ro ll edby his care erof fen de r st atus . Alte rn at iv el y , th e co urt ex pl ai ne d tha t ev enif t he am en dm en t

This is S mith’s second § 3582(c ) motion, and he a lso filed a motion to vacate sentenc e, 2 28 U.S.C. § 2255, before filing the instant moti on. Neither Smit h’s pre vious § 3582 (c) motion nor his § 2255 motion provided him with any relief . 3 Case: 12-11355 Date Filed: 08/14/2012 Page: 3 of 6ap pl ie d, t he co urt wo ul d n ev erthe le ss sen te nc e Sm it h t o 2 35 m on th s’

im pr is on m en t b as edon th e 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) s en te nc in g fa ct or s. Sm it h n ow ap pe al s, ar gu in g t ha t the Supr em e Co urt’s re cen t d eci si on in Free man v. Uni te d Sta tes , 56 4 U.S. _

__ , 13 1 S .Ct. 2 68 5 (2 01 1) , gra nt edth e di st ric t co urt au th or it y

to reduc e h is sen te nc e inli gh t o f Am en dm en t 7 50 de sp it e th e fac t tha t h e was a care er o ffen de r. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on no t t o re du ce a s en te nc e p ur su an t t o § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) fo r anab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. Da vis , 58 7 F .3d13 00 , 13 03 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Bu t we re vi ew se nt en ci ng is su es no t ra is edbe fo re a d is tri ct co urt fo r pl ai n e rro r. Uni te d Sta tes v. C ama ch o-Ib ar qu en , 41 0 F .3d13 07 , 13 15 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . “ Pl ai n e rro r oc cu rs if (1 ) th ere was erro r, (2 ) th atwas p la in , (3 ) th ataffe ct edth e d efen da nt ’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts , and(4) th atser io us ly affect ed th e fai rn es s, i nt eg rity , or p ub li c rep ut at io n o f jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs .” Uni te d Sta tes v. W ri gh t , 60 7 F .3d70 8, 7 15 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Und er § 35 82 , a di stric t co urt m ay m od ify a term

of i m pr is on m en t i n t he cas e o f a d efen da ntwho was s en te nc edba se d o n asen te nc in g ra ng e th atha s subs eque nt ly been lo weredby the Sen te nc in g C omm is si on . 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ). Bu t “ [w]here aretro act iv el y ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e am en dm en t reduc es a de fen da nt ’s bas e o ffen se lev el , bu t d oe s n otalt er the sen te nc in g ra ng e 4 Case: 12-11355 Date Filed: 08/14/2012 Page: 4 of 6up on whi ch hi s o r he r se nt en ce was ba se d, § 35 82 (c)( 2) do es no t au th or iz e a

reduc ti on in sen te nc e.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Mo or e , 54 1 F .3d13 23 , 13 30 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ); se e a ls o U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .10 (a)( 2) (B). Sp eci fic al ly, a reduc ti onin a de fen da nt ’s term

of i m pr is on m en t i s n otau th or iz edby § 35 82 (c)( 2) wher e a retro act iv el y -ap pl ic ab le am en dm en t d oe s n otlo wer the de fen da nt ’s app li cab le gu id el in e ran ge du e to th e o pe rat io n o f an ot he r gu id el in e p ro vi si on , su ch as t he care er-o ffen de r pr ov is io ns . U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 0, co m m en t. (n .1(A) ); Moo re , 54 1 F.3 d a t 1 33 0. Here, the di st ric t co urt d idno t err in de nyin g S m it h’s § 35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n be cau se Am en dm en t 7 50 di d n otlo wer Sm it h’s g ui de li ne ran ge . Alth ou gh th e di st ric t co urt d ep art eddo wnwar d i n S m it h’s cr im in al hi st ory cat eg ory , Sm it h’s ul ti m at e se nt en ce was ba se d o n h is st atus as acare er o ffen de r an d n otth e gu id el in e th atwou ldot he rwis e h av e ap pl ie d t o h is dru g o ffen se s. Be cau se Am en dm en t 7 50 di d n otalt er the care er-o ffen de r gu id el in e, an d, t he refo re, d idno t ha ve th e eff

ectof l owe rin g S m it h’s g ui de li ne ran ge , Sm ith was no t el ig ib le fora reduc ti on un de r § 3 58 2( c)(2 ). The Supr em e Co urt’s re cen t p lu ral it y op in io n i n Free man do es no t al te r ou r an al y si s. In Free man , th e Co urt co nc lu de d t ha t d efen da nt s wh o e nt er i nt o p le a ag reem en ts th atreco m

m en d apa rti cu la r se nt en ce as a co nd it io n o f th e g ui lt y pl ea 5 Case: 12-11355 Date Filed: 08/14/2012 Page: 5 of 6un de r Fed eral Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 1 1( c)(1 )(C) were n otpre cl ud edfro m

rel ie f un de r § 3 58 2( c)(2 ). Free man , 56 4 U.S. at__ _, 1 31 S.Ct . at 2 69 0. Th is co urt re cen tl y

reject edth e Free man arg um en t Sm ith m ak es he re an d h el d t ha t Moo re rem ai ns bi nd in g p rece de nt . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. La ws on , – F.3 d – , No. 1 1- 15 91 2, 2 01 2 WL 28 66 26 5, at*2 -3 (11 th Cir . Ju ly 13, 2 01 2) . Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly den ie d S m ith’s m ot io n t o c orrect se nt en ce. AFFIRMED.

6 Case: 12-11355 Date Filed: 08/14/2012 Page: 6 of 6