FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T FEBRUARY 18, 2 009 T HOMAS K . KAHN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 14 08 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 8 9- 00 17 0- CR-DM M UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us JOHN OTIS BURNSI DE, 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 urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Feb ru ary 18 , 20 09 ) Befo re BLACK, CARNES, an d B ARKETT, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Jo hn Oti s B urns id e, a fed eral pri so ne r pr oc eed in g p ro se, app eal s the di st ric tco urt’s d en ia l o f hi s 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n t o re du ce h is 42 0- m on th

se nt en ce. Bu rn si de co nt en ds th athe is en ti tl edto a se nt en ci ng reduc ti on ba se d o n Am en dm en t 5 06 to th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es , whi chad dr es se d the de fin it io n o f

“ Offen se Sta tu to ry

Max im um ” as us edin§ 4 B1 .1. He al so co nt en ds th atth e di st ric t co urt l ack edsubjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on inth e se nt en ci ng pro ceed in g be cau se he in vo lunt ari ly w ai ve d h is rig htto co un se l i n v io la ti on of the Six th Am en dm en t. We affirm . W e rev ie w de n ov o adi st ric t co urt’s co nc lu si on s ab ou t the sco pe of i ts leg al
au th or ity un de r 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ). Uni te d S ta te s v . Mo or e, 54 1 F .3d13 23 , 13 26 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d S tate s v . Whi te , 30 5 F .3d12 64 , 12 67 (11 th Ci r. 20 02 )). W e m ay

affi rm on an y gro un d s up po rte d b y

th e rec or d. Un it ed 1 St at es v. Me

jia, 8 2 F .3d10 32 , 10 35 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ). Bu rn si de fir stco nt en ds th athe is en ti tl edto a se nt en ce re du ct io n u nd er Am en dm en t 5 06 to th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es . The d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er d en y in g Bu rn si de ’s m ot io n fo r a reduc edsen te nc e d oe s n otrefe r to Am en dm en t 5 06
. In st ead , itap pe ars to ha ve co ns id eredon ly the effe ctof Am en dm en t 7 06
. Am en dm en t 7 06 do es no t l owe r Bu rn si de ’s sen te nc e b ecau se hi s co nv ic ti on s
Once it is established that 18 U.S.C. § 3582 applies, a district court’s dec ision to gra nt or 1 deny a sente nce reduction is revie wed only for a buse of discr etion. United States v. Vautier , 144 F.3d 756, 759 n.3 ( 11th Cir. 1998). 2in vo lv e p owd er co cai ne an d Am en dm en t 7 06 ap pl ie s o nl y to crac k c oc ai ne
co nv ic ti on s. See U.S.S.G. app . C, Am en d. 7 06 (20 07 ); Un it edSta te s v . Jam es , 54 8 F .3d98 3, 9 84 –8 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . Sti ll , eve n a ss um in g tha t the di st ric t co urt di d n otco ns id er Bu rn si de ’s arg um en t re ga rd in g Am en dm en t 5 06 , we canaffi rm
on an y gro un ds supp orte d b y

th e rec or d. Me

jia, 8 2 F .3dat 1 03 5. Here we af

firm be cau se Am en dm en t 5 06 do es no t o pe rat e to lo wer Bu rn si de ’s sen te nc e. Burn si de co nt en ds th athi s g ui de li ne ran ge was i m pr op erl y
en ha nc edun de r § 4 B1 .1 o f th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es be cau se hi s “ Offen se St atut ory Max im um ” was in crea se d b as edon hi s p rio r cri min al hi st ory invi ol at io n of Am en dm en t 5 06 . See U.S.S.G. ap p. C, Am en d. 5 06
. He is wron g. Fo r on e 2 th in g, Am en dm en t 5 06 was e ffec ti ve ly sup erce de d b y Am en dm en t 5 67 ; the
se nt en ci ng gu id el in es no w def in e “ Offen se Sta tu to ry

Max im um ” as us edin§ 4B 1.1 as i nc lu di ng “ an y

in crea se in[th e st atut ory ] m ax im um term un de r a Amendment 506, ef

fec tive November

1, 1994, chang ed the de finition of “Off ense 2 Statutory Maxi mum” for the pur

poses of § 4B 1.1 to: [T] he maximumterm of imprisonment authorized for the offe nse of c onviction that is a crime of

violence or

controlled substanc e off

ense, not includingany incre ase in that maximumterm under a sente ncingenhanc ement provision that applies bec ause of

the def endant' s prior criminal recor d . . . . For example, where the statutory

maxi mum term of imprisonment under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)( 1)(C) is incre ased f

rom twenty

year s to thirty

year s beca

use the de fenda

nt has one or mor e qualifying prior drugconvictions, the ‘Of fense Statutory

Maxi mum’ for the purposes of this guideline is twenty year s and not thirty

year s. U.S.S.G. app. C, Amend. 506. 3se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t p ro vi si on th atap pl ie s b ecau se of t he de fen da nt ’s pri or

cri m in al reco rd .” Id . § 4 B1 .1 cmt. n .2; see als o i d. ap p. C, Am en d 5 67 . Mor e fund am en ta ll y , Burns id e was co nv ic te d o f, am on g o th er thi ng s, co ns pi racy to po ss es s wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e atlea stfiv e k il og ram s o f co cai ne , whi chha s a st atut ory m ax im um pe na lty of l ife im pr is on m en t. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 6, 84 1( b) (1 )(A). The refo re, Bu rn si de ’s bas e o ffen se lev el was i nc reas edto 37 pu rs ua nt§ 4 B1 .1 re ga rd le ss of h is pa stcri min al hi st ory . See U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1(b ). It f ol lo ws tha t the di st ric t co urt u se d the pro pe r ba se off en se lev el incal cu la ti ng Bu rn si de ’s sen te nc e. Bu rn si de ’s Six th Am en dm en t cl ai m als o fa il s. We do no t h av e juri sd ic ti on
un de r § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) to co rrec t an ex tra ne ou s re se nt en ci ng is su e. See Un it edSta te s v. Br av o, 2 03 F.3d77 8, 7 82 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). AFFIRMED.

4