FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APRI L16, 2012 J OHN LEY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 89 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 9 :9 8- cr-0 81 05 -DTKH-1
UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us BYRON KEITH THOMAS, 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 forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 16 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, HULL andW ILSON, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Byro n Kei thTho m as , a fed eral pri so ne r co nv ic te d o f two crac k c oc ai ne

of fen se s an d afir earm

off en se , app eal s the de ni al of h is 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n fo r a s en te nc e reduc ti on . After r ev ie w, we affi rm . 1 Und er § 35 82 (c)( 2) , a di stric t co urt h as th e au th or ity to m od ify a de fen da nt ’s term

of i m pr is on m en t i f th e d efen da nt ’s sen te nc e was “ba se d o n a se nt en ci ng ran ge th atha s s ub se qu en tl y be enlo weredby the Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on pu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. [§] 99 4( o) .” 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ); s ee al so U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .10 (a)( 1) . Howev er, i f th e retro act iv el y ap pl ic ab le am en dm en t t o th e g ui de li ne s “ reduc e[d ] a d efen da nt ’s bas e o ffen se lev el , bu t d oe s n otalt er the se nt en ci ng ran ge up on whi chhi 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 insen te nc e.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Mo or e, 54 1 F .3d13 23 , 13 30 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) ; s ee al so U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .10 (a)( 2) (B). A sen te nc e reduc ti on is no t au th or iz edif the am en dm en t d oe s n otlo wer a de fen da nt ’s app li cab le gu id el in es ran ge “be cau se of t he op erat io n o f an ot he r gu id el in e o r st atut ory

pro vi si on .” U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .10 cmt. n .1(A) . Thu s, wh en de fen da nt ’s app li cab le gu id el in es ran ge is de te rm in edby his st atus as a n arm ed care er cr im in al , pu rs ua ntto U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .4, an d n otby the am ountof c rack

“We re view de novo a

district court’s c onclusions about the scope of its leg al authority 1 under 18 U .S.C. § 3582(c)(2) .” United States v. James, 548 F.3d 983, 984 (11th Cir. 2008). 2co cai ne in vo lv edinhi s o ffen se , pu rs ua ntto U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (c), the de fen da ntis

no t el ig ib le for§ 3 58 2( c)(2 ) rel ie f ba se d o n re cen t am en dm en ts to th e b as e o ffen se le ve ls in§ 2 D1.1 (c) fo r cra ck co cai ne off

en se s. See , e.g., Un it edSta te s v . Tho m as , 54 5 F .3d13 00 , 13 01 -0 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) (in vo lv in g § 35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n ba se d o n Am en dm en t 7 06 ). Here, the di stric t co urt d idno t err in de nyin g Th om as ’s § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n. Th om as ’s m ot io n was ba se d o n Am en dm en t 7 50 , whi chch an ge d the dru g qu an ti ty tab le s i n U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1(c ) to co nf orm to th e Fai r Sen te nc in g Actof 20 10 . See U.S.S.G. ap p. C, amend s. 7 50 , 75 9 (makin g Am en dm en t 7 50 retro act iv e); U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .10 (c) (l is ti ng Am en dm en t 7 50 as a n a m en dm en t fo r whi cha de fen da ntm ay

fil e a § 35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n) . Becau se Tho m as was de si gn at edanarm edcare er cr im in al at h is ori gi na l s en te nc in g, h is off en se lev el was ba se d o n U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.4 , no t o n the dru g qua nt ity tab le s i n U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (c). See Tho m as , 54 5 F .3dat 1 30 1. Thu s, Am en dm en t 7 50 ha d n o e ffec t 2 on Tho m as ’s ul ti m at e se nt en ci ng ran ge . Thomas involved a prior § 3582(c) (2) motion filed by the same de fenda

nt, By ron Ke ith 2 Thomas, but brought pursuant to Amendment 706, a 2007 a mendment that lower ed the of fense levels in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) for c rac k coca ine offe nses. In Thomas, we a ffirme d the district court’s de nial of Thomas’s § 3582( c)( 2) motion beca use Thomas wa s sentence d as an a rmed car eer criminal under

U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4. 545 F .3d at 1301. Thomas conc edes that our ea rlier Thomas opinion controls, but states that he bring s his challeng e to pre serve it for possible future appea ls. 3W e fi ndno m eri t t o Th om as ’s arg um en t tha t h e is eli gi bl e fo r § 3 58 2( c)(2 )

rel ie f be cau se U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .4’s arm edcare er cr im in al enha nc em en t ap pl ie d o nl y to hi s fi rearm

co nv ic ti on (Co un t 1 ) an d n otto hi s two cr ackco cai ne co nv ic ti on s (Co un ts 2 an d 3 ). At s en te nc in g, the di stric t co urt g ro up edall th ree c ou nt s fo r pu rp os es of c al cu la ti ng Tho m as ’s off en se lev el , purs ua ntto U.S.S.G. § 3 D1.2 (c). The co urt the n d et erm in edth atth e ap pl ic ab le off en se lev el was 3 4, p ur su an t t o U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .4(b )(3 )(A). Thu s, Th om as ’s off en se lev el forall th ree c ou nt s was ba se d o n § 4B 1.4 (b )(3 )(A), wh ic h was no t ch an ge d b y Am en dm en t 7 50 . Fo r th es e rea so ns , th e d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y co nc lu de d tha t Th om as was in el ig ib le fora § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) se nt en ce re du ct io n. AFFIRMED.

4