[DO N OT PUBLISH]

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

__
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 76 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 2 :9 5- cr-0 01 29 -J HH-TMP-2 2

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

JESS IE N. TURNER, 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 Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Al ab am a

__
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st 20 , 20 12 ) Befo re HULL, MARCUS an d M ARTIN, Cir cu it Ju dg es .

Case: 11-15764 Date Filed: 08/20/2012 Page: 1 of 4PER CURI AM:

Je ss ie Turn er, a fed eral pr is on er pr oc eed in g pr o se , ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of hi s 18 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n. Turn er’s m ot io n req ue st ed th at hi s 29 2- m on th se nt en ce, i mp o s ed fo r co ns pi racy to po ss es s wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e

co cai ne ba se , co cai ne , m ari juan a, an d pr e s c r i p ti on dr ug s, as well as us e of a

co m m un ic at io n faci li ty to co m m it a fel on y dr ug of

f e n s e , b e red uc ed in li gh t of
Am en dm en t 75 0 to th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s, whi ch lo wered th e ba se of fen se le ve ls

co rres po nd in g to so m e crac k co cai ne of fen se s. On ap pe al , Turn er arg ue s: (1 ) whi le hi s 29 2- m on th se nt en ce fell wit hi n hi s am en de d gu id el in e ran ge un de r Am en dm en t 75 0, th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve co nd uc te d an an al y si s of th e 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) fact or s to de te rm in e whe th er a red uc ti on t o a lo wer se nt en ce wit hi n th e am en de d
gu id el in e ran ge was warra nt ed ; an d (2 ) th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to co m pl y wit h Uni te d St at es v. Bo ok er, 54 3 U.S. 22 0 (2 00 5) , be cau se it co ns id ered fact s th at ha d no t be en fo un d by a ju r y o r ad m it te d; an d Kim br ou gh v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S. 85 (2 00 7) , be cau se hi s am en de d gu id el in e ran ge was ba se d on an un warra nt ed s e n t e n c i ng d i s p ari ty b et ween crac k an d po wde r co cai ne po ss es si on se nt en ces . Afte r th or ou g h

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 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. Sm it h, 56 8 F.3 d 92 3,
2 Case: 11-15764 Date Filed: 08/20/2012 Page: 2 of 492 6 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 09 ). Und er § 35 82 (c)( 2) , “ in th e cas e of a de fen da nt who ha s be en

se nt en ced to a te rm of im pr is on m en t ba se d on a se nt en ci ng ran ge th at ha s

su bs eq ue nt ly be en lo wered by th e Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on . . . [a di st ric t co ur t] m ay red uc e th e te rm o f im

pr is on m en t.” 18 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2)

. A m od ifi cat io n is
pe rm it te d on ly “ if su ch a red uc ti on is co ns i s te nt wit h ap pl ic ab le po li cy st at em en ts is su ed by the Sen te nc in g C om m is si on .” Id

. The Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s pr ov id e th at , whe re a de fen da nt ’s ap pl ic ab le
gu id el in e ran ge ha s be en lo wer ed “ as a res ul t of an am en dm en t to th e Gui de li ne s Man ua l

. . . th e co ur t m ay red uc e th e de fen da nt ’s te rm of im pr is on men t ” u nd er § 35 82 (c)( 2)

. U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 0( a)(1 ). The no te s to th at pr ov is io n st at e th at “ th e co ur t sh al l co ns id er th e [§ 35 53 (a) fact or s] i n de te rm in in g: (I) whe th er a red uc ti on in th e de fen da nt ’s te rm of im

pr is on m en t is warra nt ed ; an d (II) th e ex te nt of su ch red uc ti on .”
U

. S

. S

. G

. § 1B 1.1 0, cm

t. 1( B)(i ). W e ha ve he ld th at a di st ric t co ur t “ co m m it s no

rev ers ib le erro r by fai li ng to art ic ul at e sp eci fic al ly th e ap pl ic ab il it y -- if an y -- of each of th e s e c t i o n 3 5 53 (a) fact or s, as lo ng as th e reco rd de m on st rat es th at th e pe rti ne nt fact or s we r e t a ke n in to acco un t by th e di st ric t co ur t.” Sm it h, 56 8 F.3 d at 92 7 (q uo ta ti on s om it te d)

. Sm it h fu rth er no te d th at “ Bo ok er an d Kim br ou gh do no t ap pl y
to 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) pr oc eed in gs .” Id . at 9 29

.

3 Case: 11-15764 Date Filed: 08/20/2012 Page: 3 of 4In th is cas e, th e di st ric t cou rt di d no t abu se it s d is cret io n in de nyin g Turn er’s

m ot io n. Bo th § 35 82 (c)( 2) an d § 1B 1.1 0( a)(1 ) m ak e cl ear th at th e di st ric t co ur t ha d di sc ret io n in wh e t h e r t o l o w er hi s te rm of im pr is on m en t as a res ul t of th e lo wered
ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge . See 18 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) , U.S.S.G. § 1 B 1

. 1 0 ( a ) (1 ).
W hi le Turn er cl ai m s th at th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to co ns id er th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s in de nyin g hi s m ot io n, th e reco rd do es no t su pp or t th at al le ga ti on , as th e co ur t’s de ni al

no te s th at it co ns id ered each of th e fact or s. Und er Sm it h, th e co ur t was no t req ui red
to art ic ul at e th e ap pl ic ab il it y of each fact or , bu t on ly to de m on st rat e th at it to ok th em in to acco un t whe n m ak in g it s de te rm in at io n. Sm it h, 56 8 F.3 d a t 9 2 7

. Bec au se th e di st ric t co u r t ’s o r d e r do es so , Turn er ha s fai le d to sh ow th at th e di st ric t co ur t

co m m it te d re ve rs ib le erro r in it s co ns id erat io n o f th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. As fo r Tur ne r’s arg um en t t ha t t he co ur t vi ol at ed Bo ok er an d Kim br ou gh , we ha ve he ld th at ne it he r of th es e cas es ap pl ie s to 18 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) pr oc eed in gs . Id . at 9 29 . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm . AFFIRMED.

4 Case: 11-15764 Date Filed: 08/20/2012 Page: 4 of 4