FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT OCTOB ER 2, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 15654 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 89 -000 13 -C R -G E T -1 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s G R E G O R Y S . J O N E S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 2, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , D U B IN A an d C A RN E S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: G r e g o ry S . J o n e s , af

e d e r a l p r is o n e r , ap p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f h is2

m ot i on t o r e duc e hi s s e nt e nc e ba s e d on ar e tr oa c t i ve a m e ndm e ntt o the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s , pur s ua ntt o 18 U . S . C . § 3582( c ) ( 2) . A f e de r a l j ury c onvi c t e d J one s of tw o c o u n t s o f

b a n kr o b b e ry , tw o c o u n t s o f f i r e a rm o f f e n s e s u n d e r1 8 U . S. C. § 9 2 4 (c) fo r each resp ect i v e ro b b ery, an d o n e co u n to f p o ssessi o n o f a fi rearm b y a c o n v ic te d f

e lo n . O n ap p e a l, J o n e s a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ab u s e d its di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o r e duc e hi s s e nt e nc e be c aus e , ba s e d on the r e tr oa c t i ve appl i c a t i on of U . S . S . G . A pp. C , A m e ndm e nt599 ( 2000) ( “ A m e ndm e nt599” ) , i ti m pe rm i s s i bl y appl i e d w e apons e nha nc e m e nt s t o de t e rm i ne th e o f f e n s e le v e l o f

th e b a n kr o b b e ry c o u n ts u n d e rth e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s . J o n e s c o n te n d s th a t, b yap p ly in g th e s e w e ap o n e n h a n c e m e n ts to d e te rm in e h is offe nse l evel , the courtdo ub l e c ou nt ed the cond uctac coun t ed for i n the fi re arm char ges. Jones f

urther argues thatthe di stri ctcourtst i l l coul d reduce hi s t ot al s e nt e nc e , e ve n i f

he a l r e a dy ha d c om pl e t e d the gui de l i ne port i on of hi s puni s hm e nt and o nl y c on t i nu ed t o serve hi s c on se cut i ve st atut ory m andat ory s ent ence s und er § 9 2 4 ( c ) . L a s tly , J o n e s c o n te n d s th a t th e c o u rt s h o u ld c o n s id e rth e f a c t th a t h e is ol de r , ha s publ i s he d tw o books , ha s w r i tt e n as e l f - de ve l opm e ntpr ogr a m , m a i nt a i ns e x c e p tio n a l in s titu tio n c o n d u c t, a n d is n o t p r e s e n tlyad a n g e r o u s in d iv id u a l. I . B AC KG RO UN D3

W e r e vi e w “ adi s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de c i s i on w he the rt o r e duc e as e nt e nc e pur s ua nt t o 18 U . S . C . § 3582( c ) ( 2) , ba s e d on as ubs e que ntc ha nge i n the gui de l i ne s , f or ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n .” U n ite d S ta te s v . B r o w n , 3 3 2 F .3 d 1 3 4 1 , 1 3 4 3 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 03 ). “ A di stri ctcourtby defi ni t i on abuses i t s di sc re t i on w hen i tm akes an error of l aw . ” I d. (c i t at i on om i tt ed). T o the ext entthe di stri ctcourtm ade l egal co n cl u si o n s co n cern i n g th e sco p e o f i t s au th o ri ty u n d er th e S en t en ci n g G u i d el i n es, in ap r o c e e d in g to m o d if y as e n te n c e u n d e r§ 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) , r e v ie w is d e n o v o . U ni t ed S t at es v. W hi t e, 30 5 F . 3d 12 64 , 12 67 (11th C i r. 20 02 ). A di stri ctcourtordi nari l y c anno tm od i fya t erm of i m pri sonm entaf t eri thas been i m po se d. U ni t ed S t at es v. M oreno, 42 1 F . 3d 12 17 , 12 19 (11th C i r. 20 05 ), c e rt . de ni e d, 547 U . S . 1050 ( 2006) . “ [ H ] ow e ve r , i n the c a s e of ade f e nda ntw ho has bee n sent ence d t o a t erm of i m pri sonm entbase d o n a se nt enci ng rang e thathas su b se q u en tl y b ee n lo w er ed b y th e S en ten cin g C o m m issio n , up o n a d ef en d an t’ s m ot i on, the c ourtm a y r e duc e the t e rm of i m pr i s onm e nt , a f

t e rc ons i de r i ng the f a c t or s s e tf

orth i n s e c t i on 3553( a ) t o the e xt e nttha tthe y a r e appl i c abl e , i f s uc h a r e duc t i on i s c ons i s t e ntw i th appl i c abl e pol i c y s t a t e m e nt s i s s ue d by the S e nt e nc i ng C om m i ss i on . ” I d. (quo t at i on and ci t at i on om i tt ed); se e a l so U . S . S . G . § 1 B 1. 10 (a ) ( “ [ w ] he r e ade f

e nda nti s s e rvi ng at e rm of i m pr i s onm e nt , a nd the gui de l i ne r a nge appl i cabl e t o thatdefe nd anthas s ub se qu ent l y bee n l ow er ed as a r es ul tof an4

a m e ndm e ntt o the G ui de l i ne s M a nua l . . . , ar e duc t i on i n the de f e nda nt ’ s t e rm of i m pri sonm enti s autho ri ze d u nd er18 U . S . C . § 3 58 2(c) (2). ”) . A m endm ent59 9, “ w hi ch w as enac t ed i n o rdert o cl ar i fyun der w hat c i r c um s t a nc e s aw e apons e nha nc e m e ntpr ope r l y m a y be appl i e d t o a n unde r l y i ng offe nse w hen the defendanthas a l so been conv i ct ed for the use or posse ss i on of a f i r e a rm pur s ua ntt o 18 U . S . C . § 924( c ) , ” i s l i s t e d a s a n a m e ndm e ntc ove r e d by the pol i c y s t a t e m e nt . U . S . S . G . § 1B 1. 10( c ) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P r i ngl e , 350 F . 3d 11 72 , 11 78 -81 (11 th C i r. 20 03 ). A s a m e n d e d b y A m e n d m e n t 5 9 9 , A p p lic a tio n N o te 4 to U .S .S .G . § 2 K 2 .4 n o w p ro v i d es: I f as e nt e nc e unde rthi s gui de l i ne i s i m pos e d i n c onj unc t i on w i th a s e n te n c e f

o ra n u n d e r ly in g o f

f e n s e [ i.e ., a rm e d r o b b e ry ], d o n o t ap p ly a ny s pe c i f

i c of f e ns e c ha r a c t e r i s t i c f

orpos s e s s i on, br a ndi s hi ng, us e , or di sc harge of an expl osi ve or fi re arm w hen d et erm i ni ng the se nt ence f orthe unde r l y i ng of

f e ns e . . . . D o notappl y a ny w e apon e nha nc e m e nt i n the gu i del i ne for the un derl yi ng offe nse, for e xam pl e, i f ( A ) a co -d efen d an t , as p arto f th e j o i n t l y u n d ert ak en cri m i n al act i v i ty, pos s e s s e d af

i r e a rm di f

f e r e ntf r om the one f

orw hi c h the de f

e nda nt w a s c onvi c t e d unde r18 U . S . C . § 924( c ) ; or( B ) i n a n ongoi ng drug tr a f f i c ki ng of f e ns e , the de f

e nda ntpos s e s s e d af

i r e a rm othe rtha n the o n e f o rw h ic h th e d e f

e n d a n t w a s c o n v ic te d u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 ( c ) . H ow e ve r , i f

ade f e nda nti s c onvi c t e d of

tw o a rm e d ba nk r obbe r i e s , but i s c onvi c t e d unde r18 U . S . C . § 924( c ) i n c onne c t i on w i th onl y one of the robb er i es , a w eapo n enh ance m entw ou l d app l y t o the bank robb ery w hi c h w a s notthe ba s i s f orthe 18 U . S . C . § 924( c ) c onvi c t i on. U .S .S .G . A p p . C , A m e n d . 5 9 9 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . T o d e te rm in e w h e th e rar e d u c tio n in5

s e nt e nc e i s w a rr a nt e d the c ourtm us t( 1) r e a s s e s s i ng the de f e nda nt ’ s s e nt e nc i ng pa c ka ge unde rthe G ui de l i ne s , a s a m e nde d, a nd ( 2) c ons i de r i ng the s e nt e nc i ng f a c t or s of 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. V aut i e r , 144 F . 3d 756, 760 (11th C i r. 19 98 ). H er e, th e d istrict co u rt d idn o t ab u se it s d iscr etio n in d en yin g Jo n es ’s § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) m o tio n . A lth o u g h th e c o u rt d id n o t c o n d u c t its o w n a n a ly s is , it a d o p te d th e g o v e rn m e n t’s a r g u m e n ts , w h ic h p r o p e r lyap p lie d th e tw o - s te p a n a ly s is t o d et erm i ne thata r educt i on w as no tw arrant ed. A ft ercare ful re vi ew of the re cord an d th e p ar ti es ’ b rief

s, w e a ff irm th e d istrict co u rt’s o rd erd en yin g Jo n es ’s § 3582( c ) m ot i on. I I I . CONCL US I ON

AF F I RME D.