FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 5, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 16 13 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :9 5- cr-0 04 51 -KMM -1
UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ANTHONYRUTHERFORD, 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 5 , 20 12 ) Befo re HULL, W ILSON an d M ARTIN, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Antho ny Ruthe rfo rd , a fed eral pri so ne r pr oc eed in g pr o s e , cha ll en ge s thedi st ric t co 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 m od ify his term of im pr is on m en t b as edonAm en dm en t 7 50 to th e Uni te d S ta te s Se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s. Am en dm en t 7 50 lo weredth e cra ckco cai ne ba se off en se lev el s i n § 2D1 .1. The Am en dm en t b ecame retro act iv e o n No ve m be r 1, 2 01 1. U.S. S E N T E N C IN G G U ID E LIN E S M A N U A L § 1 B1 .10 (c) (2 01 1) . Becau se Ru th erfo rdwas se nt en cedforco m

m it ti ng off

en se s i nv ol vi ng crac k c oc ai ne , he a rg ue s tha t h e sh ou ldbe res en te nc edso th athe m ay be ne fitfro m

Am en dm en t 7 50 . After r ev ie w, we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt. In19 95 , a jury co nv ic te d R ut he rfo rdof c on sp ira cy

to po ss es s wi th th e in te nt to di st rib ut e co cai ne , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 46 (Co un t 1 ); p os se ss io n wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e co cai ne , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) (Co un t 2 ); a nd di st rib ut io n o f co cai ne , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) (Co un t 3 ). Becaus e he ha d at l eas t two p rio r fel on y co nt ro ll ed -s ub st an ce co nv ic ti on s, Ru th erfo rdwas se nt en cedun de r th e car eer o ffen de r gu id el in e § 4B 1.1 . A di st ric t co urt i s n otau th or iz edto gra nta se nt en ce re du ct io n p ur su an t t o § 35 82 (c)( 2) “whe re a re tro act iv el y ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e am en dm en t re du ces a de fen da nt ’s bas e o ffen se lev el , bu t d oe s n otalt er the sen te nc in g ra ng e upo n wh ic h hi s o r he r se nt en ce was ba se d . . . .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Mo or e , 54 1 F .3d13 23 , 13 30 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . 2The di stric t co urt d idno t h av e au th or ity to reduc e Ru th erfo rd ’s sen te nc e be cau se Am en dm en t 7 50 di d n otalt er the sen te nc in g ra ng e fo r car eer o ffen de rs . Am en dm en t 7 50 on ly chan ge d the ba se off en se lev el s i n § 2D1 .1. Alt ho ug h Am en dm en t 7 50 wou ldha ve reduc edRu th erfo rd ’s adju st edoff en se lev el un de r § 2 D1.1 by six lev el s, the di st ric t co urt s en te nc edhi m as acare er o ffen de r, pu rs ua ntto § 4 B1 .1. Acco rd in gl y , th e ch an ge s en act edinAm en dm en t 7 50 ha ve no effe ctonRu th erfo rd ’s app li cab le sen te nc in g rang e, an d h e can no t o bt ai n re li ef fro m a m ot io n fi le d p ur su an t t o 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) . AFFIRMED .

3