FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 1, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 16 04 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 9 :0 6- cr-8 00 81 -DTKH-9

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us EDDIE RUMPH, JR ., 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 forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jun e 1 , 20 12 ) Befo re BARKETT, HULL andPRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Edd ie Ru m ph , Jr., a fe de ral pri so ne r co nv ic te d o f di st rib ut in g c oc ai ne ba se , ap pe al s the de ni al of h is 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n fo r a reduc edsen te nc e. Afte r rev ie w, we affi rm . 1 Und er § 35 82 (c)( 2) , a di st ric t co urt h as th e au th or it y 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. [§] 94 4( o) .” 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ); s ee al so U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .10 (a)( 1) . If, ho wev er, the am en de d g ui de li ne do es no t h av e th e effe ctof l owe rin g t he de fen da nt ’s sen te nc in g ra ng e, th e d is tri ctco urt h as no
au th or it y to reduc e th e d efen da nt ’s sen te nc e. Uni te d S ta te s v . Mo or e, 54 1 F .3d 13 23 , 13 30 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ); U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 0( a)(2 )(B) . For t hi s re as on , a
se nt en ce re du ct io n i s n otau 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). Mo reo ve r, whe n ade fen da ntis subjec t t o ast atut ory m an da to ry

m in im um
se nt en ce, i n a§ 3 58 2( c)(2 ) pr oc eed in g t he di stric t co urt m us t ca lc ul at e th e de fen da nt ’s new g ui de li ne ran ge as d ic tate d b y th e m an da to ry

m in im um ,
“In a § 3582(c )(2) proce eding , we r eview de novo the district court’s le g al conc lusions 1 reg ardingthe scope of its authority under theSentencingGuidelines.” United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1326 ( 11th Cir. 2008) (quotation marks omitted). 2reg ard le ss of a ny do wnwar d d ep artur e dur in g t he ori gi na l s en te nc in g. Se e Uni te d

St at es v. Mi ll s, 6 13 F.3d10 70 , 10 78 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (“ ‘[T] he gu id el in es ran ge for a d efen da ntsubjec t t o ast atut ory m in im um wou ldno t b e lo weredby an
am en dm en t, ev enif the am en dm en t wo ul d o th erwi se be ap pl ic ab le to th e de fen da nt .’ ” (quo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . W il li am s, 5 49 F.3d13 37 , 13 41 (11 thCir
. 20 08 )). As we ex pl ai ne d i n Wil li am s, “ th e st atut or il y requi redm in im

um sen te nc e effe ct iv el y

di sp la ces th e sh orte r se nt en ce an d b eco m es th e g ui de li ne sen te nc e fo r th atin di vi du al .” 54 9 F .3dat 1 34 0. Thus , when a de fen da ntis sen te nc edba se d o n th e st atut ory

m an da to ry

m in im um , any sub st an ti al ass is ta nc e reduc ti on “ wou ld th ereb y be fro m th e m an da to ry

m in im um rathe r th anfro m

th e b as e o ffen se lev el .” Id
. Here, Ru m

ph ’s § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n i s b as edon Am en dm en t 7 50 to th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es , whi chrev is edth e cra ckco cai ne qu an ti ty tab le s i n U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 to co nf orm to th e Fai r Sen te nc in g Actof 2 01 0. Se e U.S.S.G. App . C, am en d. 7 50 . Rum ph ’s ori gi na l 2 40 -m on th sen te nc e, ho wev er, was no t ba se d o n § 2D1 .1’s dru g qua nt ity tab le s, b utonth e st atut ory m an da to ry

m in im um . See 2 1 U.S.C. § § 8 41 (b )(1 )(A), 8 51 ; U.S.S.G. § 5G1 .1(b ) (p ro vi di ng th atth e st atut ory m an da to ry

m in im um is th e g ui de li ne s s en te nc e if itex ceed s the ot he rwis e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es ran ge ). Altho ug h t he di st ric t co urt s ub se qu en tl y 3gr an te d t he go ve rn m en t’s Ru le 35 (b ) subs ta nt ia l-a ss is ta nc e m ot io n andreduc ed

Ru m ph ’s sen te nc e to 18 0 m on th s, tha t re du ct io n was fro m th e st atut ory

m an da to ry
m in im um . Thu s, Am en dm en t 7 50 di d n otlo wer Ru m ph ’s sen te nc in g ra ng e. The re i s al so no m eri t t o R um ph ’s arg um en t tha t re li es on a rece nt
am en dm en t t o U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 0( b) (2 )(B) . Gener al ly, a d is tri ctco urt g ran ti ng a § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n c an no t re du ce the de fen da nt ’s pri so n t erm be lo w th e lo w end of th e n ew, am en de d g ui de li ne s ra ng e. U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .10 (b )(2 )(A). Howe ve r, if, atth e o rig in al sen te nc in g, the de fen dantrece iv eda subs ta nt ia l as si st an ce re du ct io n be lo w th e d efen da nt ’s ori gi na l g ui de li ne s ra ng e an d t he de fen da nt ’s gu id el in es
ran ge “ ha s s ub se qu en tl y

be enlo weredas ares ul t o f anam en dm en t t o t he Gui de li ne s M anua l . . . , th e co urt m ay reduc e th e d efen da nt ’s term of im pr is on m en t as pro vi de d i n 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) ” an d, u nd er § 1 B1 .10 (b )(2 )(B) , a co m pa rab le subs ta nt ia l-a ss is ta nc e reduc ti on to “ th e am en de d gu id el in e ran ge ” m ay

be ap pr op ria te at r es en te nc in g. U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .10 (a)- (b ). 2

Section 1B1.10 of

the SentencingGuidelines, as amended by Amendment 759 ef

fec tive 2 November

1, 2011, provides in re levant par t: Reduction in T ermof Imprisonm ent as a Result of Am ended Guidelin e Range ( P olicy Statem ent) (a) Authority .— (1) In Gene ral.—In a ca se in which a defe ndant is servinga ter m of imprisonment, and the guideline ra ng e applica

ble to that defe ndant has subsequently

been lowe red a s a re sult of an amendme nt to the Guidelines Manual listed in subsection (c ) below, the court may reduc e the defe ndant’s ter

m of imprisonment as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)( 2).

4The pro bl em for Ru m ph is th at§ 1 B1 .10 (b ) do es no t cr eat e a n ew gu id el in es ran ge or a m en d R um ph ’s ori gi na l g ui de li ne s ra ng e. Sect io n 1 B1 .10 (b ) ap pl ie s o nl y

aft er the di stric t h as co nc lu de d, u nd er § 1B 1.1 0( a), tha t (1 ) an As requir ed by

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) , any such re duction in the defe ndant’s ter

m of imprisonment shall be consistent with this pol icy statement. (2) Ex clusions.—A reduc tion in the defenda nt’s term of imprisonment is not consistent with this pol icy statement and the ref

ore is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if—

. . . (B ) an ame ndment listed in subsection (c) doe s not have the e ffe ct of lowe ring the def endant’ s applicable guideline ra ng e.

. . . . (b) Deter

mination of Reduction in Term of I mprisonment.— (1) In Gene ral.—In deter mining whe ther, a

nd to what extent, a reduc tion in the def endant’ s term of imprisonment under 18 U .S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this poli cy

statement is war

rante d, the cour

t shall determine the a

mended guideline ra

ng e that would have been a pplicable to the de fenda

nt if the amendment( s) to the guidelines listed in subsection (c) ha d been in e ffe ct at the time the def

endant wa s sentence d. In make suc h deter mination, the court shall substitute only the amendme nts list ed in subsection (c ) for the corr espondingguideline provisions that were applied whe n the def endant was sente nced a

nd shall leave all other guideline application decisions unaff ecte d. (2) L imitation and Prohibi tion on Ex tent of Reduction.— (A) L imitation.—Ex cept a s provided in subdivision (B), the court shall not reduc e the de fenda

nt’s term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2) a

nd this poli cy

statement to a ter

m that is less than the minimumof the amended g uideline ra

ng e dete rmined under subdivision (1) of this subsection. (B ) Ex ception for

Substantial Assist ance .—I f the ter m of imprisonment impos ed wa s less than the term of imprisonment provided by

the guideline ra

ng e applica

ble to the def

endant a t the time of sentenc ing pur suant to a g overnme nt motion t o ref lect the defe ndant’s substantial assistance to authorities, a re duction compar ably

less than the ame nded guideline ra ng e dete rmined under subdivision (1) of this subsec tion may be appr opriate.

. . . . U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)-(b). 5am en dm en t (h ere Am en dm en t 7 50 ) lo weredth e d efen da nt ’s gu id el in es ran ge us ed

atth e o rig in al sen te nc in g; an d (2 ) itha s au th or it y to reduc e th e d efen da nt ’s
se nt en ce as pro vi de d i n § 35 82 (c)( 2) . Id. If the di st ric t co urt d et erm in es itlac ks
au th or it y to reduc e a s en te nc e und er § 35 82 (c)( 2) , th e in qu iry end s an d s ub se ct io n (b ) do es no t co m e in to pl ay . Here, Ru m

ph ’s sen te nc e was ba se d o n t he st atut ory m an da to ry

m in im um , hi s s ub st an ti al -as si st an ce re du ct io n was fro m th atst atut ory

m an da to ry

m in im um , an d Am en dm en t 7 50 ha d n o e ffec t o n h is gu id el in e se nt en ce o f 24 0 m on th s di ct at edby the st atut ory

m an da to ry

m in im um . Thu s, Ru m

ph was n oteli gi bl e fo r
res en te nc in g u nd er § 35 82 (c)( 2) an d § 1B 1.1 (a), an d t he refo re am en de d § 1 B1 .10 (b )(2 )(B) do es no t ap pl y to hi m . Insu m , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t h av e au th or ity to reduc e Ru m

ph ’s sen te nc e
an d p ro pe rly den ie d h is § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n. AFFIRMED.

6