[DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 1- 15 62 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd er

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 6- cr-1 40 31 -KMM -1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pla in ti ff - Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us TOMMY LEE CARTER, JR., Defen da nt- App el la nt .

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

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Au gu st13 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, FAY, an d EDMONDSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:

Case: 11-15621 Date Filed: 08/13/2012 Page: 1 of 4In20 07 , Tomm y Cart er, J r. pl ead edgu il ty to o ne co un t o f po ss es si on with in te ntto di st rib ut e cra ckco cai ne in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) . The pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt r eco m m en de d agu id el in es ran ge of 8 4– 10 5
m on th s i m

pr is on m en t. Carte r di d n otob ject t o t he PSR, an d the di st ric t co urt se nt en cedhi m

to 10 5 m on th s i n p ris on . InOcto be r 20 11 , Cart er fi le d am ot io n t o re du ce h is sen te nc e u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ), as se rti ng th atAm en dm en t 7 50 to th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es ha d re du cedhi s g ui de li ne s ra ng e to 37 –4 6 m on th s i m pr is on m en t. The go ve rn m en t op po se d t he m ot io n, ar gu in g t ha t the di st ric t co urt s ho ul d d en y itbe cau se of Cart er’s ex te ns iv e cri m in al hi st ory an d b ecau se he ha d thr ee d is ci pl in ary refe rral s whi le in pri so n— on e fo r fi gh ti ng , on e fo r as saul t, an d o ne forpo ss es si ng a da ng ero us weap on . Cart er h adun ti l No ve m

be r 17 , 20 11 , to rep ly to the go ve rn m en t’s re sp on se , bu t the di st ric t co urt d en ie d h is m ot io n fo r a reduc edsen te nc e o n No ve m be r 14 , 20 11 , bef or e Carte r fi le d arep ly. The c ou rt’s o rd er s ta te d t ha t i t h ad“ co ns id ered [Carte r’s] m ot io n, an d [t oo k] in to acco un t the po li cy st at em en t s etforth at USS G § 1B 1.1 0 a ndth e se nt en ci ng fact or s s etforth in 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a), t o t he ex te nt th atth ey are ap pl ic ab le .” The c ou rt d idno t p ro vi de an y furth er ex pl an at io n fo r it s de ci si on . 2

Case: 11-15621 Date Filed: 08/13/2012 Page: 2 of 4Cart er ap pe al s t he de ni al of h is § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n, co nt en di ng th atth e

di st ric t co urt i m

pr op erl y de ni edth e m ot io n b efo re h e h adanop po rtu ni ty to res po ndto th e g ov ern m en t’s as se rti on th athe ha d re cei ve d t hr ee d is ci pl in ary refe rral s wh il e in pri so n. We revi ew on ly for ab us e o f di sc ret io n adi st ric t co urt’s de ni al of a§ 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n. Un it edSta te s v . Mo ren o, 4 21 F.3d12 17 , 12 19 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . “ The di stric t co urt ab us es it s d is cret io n i f itfai ls to ap pl y th e pr op er l eg al st an da rdor t o fo ll ow p ro pe r pr oc edur es in m ak in g i ts de te rm in at io n.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Ju le s, 5 95 F.3d12 39 , 12 41 –4 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) (al te rat io n a nd qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. InJu le s, we h el d “ th ateach pa rty [ina § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) pr oc eed in g] m us t b e gi ve n n ot ic e o f an d a n o pp ortu ni ty to co nt es t n ew in fo rm at io n re li edon by the di st ric t co urt i n [t he ] pr oc eed in g.” 59 5 F .3dat 1 24 5. We exp la in edth at“ ne w in fo rm at io n” is in fo rm at io n t ha t was no t av ai labl e atth e o rig in al sen te nc in g. Se e id . Cart er’s thr ee d is ci pl in ary refe rral s ar e “ ne w in fo rm at io n” be cau se th ey were no t av ai labl e—t he y

di d n otex is t— athi s o rig in al sen te nc in g. Th e d is tri ctco urt di d n otgi ve Cart er an op po rtu ni ty to re sp on d t o t ha t n ew in fo rm at io n b ecau se it de ni edhi s m ot io n b efo re h e h adrep li edto th e g ov ern m en t’s re sp on se an d b efo re hi s t im e fo r do in g s o h adex pi red . The que st io n, the n, i s wh ethe r th e d is tri ctco urt rel ie d o n t ho se refe rral s i n d en y in g C art er’s m ot io n. Se e Ju le s, 5 95 F.3dat 1 24 5. 3 Case: 11-15621 Date Filed: 08/13/2012 Page: 3 of 4W e can no t an swe r th atqu es ti on be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er d oe s n ot

pr ov id e u s wi then ou ghin fo rm at io n t o d o s o. Th e co urt’s o rd er s ta te s o nl y th atit
co ns id eredCart er’s m ot io n, U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 0, an d the 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) fact or s; itdo es no t m en ti on th e d is ci pl in ary refe rral s. Ev enso , th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s i nc lu de “ th e h is to ry an d c ha ract eri st ic s o f th e d efen da nt ” an d t he ne ed“ to pr ot ectth e p ub li c fro m

furth er cr im es of the de fen da nt .” 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(1 ), (a)( 2) (C). So , inco ns id eri ng th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s, the di st ric t co urt m ay ha ve co ns id eredCart er’s d is ci pl in ary refe rral s, wh ic h a re ev id en ce o f hi s “ hi st ory an d ch arac te ris ti cs ” an d are re le va ntto th e co urt’s co ns id erat io n o f th e n eed“ to pro te ct th e p ub li c fro m

furth er cr im es .” Becaus e we can no t t el l fr om th e rec or d wh ethe r th e d is tri ctco urt re li edon th e d is ci pl in ary refe rral s, we m us t v acat e it s o rd er an d
rem an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te ntwith the requi rem en ts of the Ju le s de ci si on . VACATED AND REMANDED
. 1

Carter ’s re quest to expedite his appeal is DENIED . 1 4 Case: 11-15621 Date Filed: 08/13/2012 Page: 4 of 4