[PUBLISH]

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 2- 10 58 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd er

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :0 5- cr-0 00 06 -RV-2

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pla in ti ff - Ap pe ll ee, ver su s DESHAW

N TRAVIS GLOVER, Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Jul y 11 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, HULL, andMARCUS , Cir cu itJu dg es . CARNES, Ci rcu itJu dg e:

Case: 12-10580 Date Filed: 07/11/2012 Page: 1 of 12Des ha wn Gl ov er, act in g p ro se, app eal s the di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s

m ot io n t o re du ce h is sen te nc e und er 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) ba se d o n aretro act iv e am en dm en t t o t he sen te nc in g g ui de li ne s tha t l owe redth e b as e o ffen se lev el s fo r cert ai n c rackco cai ne cri m es . He con te nd s tha t Am en dm en t 7 59 to th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es , U.S.S.G. App. C, amend . 75 9 (No v. 2 01 1) , abr og at es ou r ho ld in g i n Uni te d S ta te s v . Mil ls , 61 3 F .3d10 70 (11 thCir . 20 10 ), an d g iv es th e d is tri ctco urt au th or it y to reduc e h is sen te nc e as a res ul t o f Am en dm en t 7 50 , whi chrev is edth e crac k c oc ai ne qu an ti ty tab le s i n U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1 t o c on fo rm to th e Fai r Sen te nc in g Actof 2 01 0, s ee U.S.S.G. App . C, am en d. 7 50 (Nov . 20 11 ). I. In20 05 , Glo ve r pl ead edgu il ty to o ne co un t o f co ns pi racy to d is tri bu te an d po ss es s wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e cra ckco cai ne invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 )(A), an d § 84 6, an d o ne co un t o f po ss es si on with i nt en t t o di st rib ut e 5 0 g ram s o r m or e o f cra ckco cai ne invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) , (b )(1 )(A). The pre se nt en ce i nv es ti ga ti on rep ort re co m m en de d aba se off

en se lev el of 38 un de r Uni te d S ta te s Se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s § 2D1 .1(c )(1 ) (No v. 2 00 4) be cau se th e o ffen se in vo lv ed2 k il og ram s o f cra ckco cai ne . The PSR reco m m en de d a3-l ev el de crea se foracce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y un de r § 3 E1.1 , whi chres ul te d i n ato ta l o ffen se lev el of 3 5. Itde te rm in edth atGlo ve r ha d a 2 Case: 12-10580 Date Filed: 07/11/2012 Page: 2 of 12cri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory of I I. Thatto ta l o ffen se lev el , com bi ne d wi th th at cri m in al hi st ory

cat eg ory , no rm al ly lead s t o agu id el in es ran ge of 1 88 to 23 5 m on th s i n p ris on . Glo ve r, ho wev er, was subjec t t o am an da to ry m in im um li fe se nt en ce u nd er 2 1 U.S.C. § 84 1( b) (1 )(A) b ecau se he ha d a t l eas t two “pr io r co nv ic ti on s fo r a fel on y

dru g o ffen se .” Becaus e th e st atut ory m an da to ry

m in im um se nt en ce was gre at er tha n t he ot he rwis e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es ran ge , th e st atut ory m an da to ry

m in im um of l ife im pr is on m en t b ecame the gu id el in es ran ge of l ife in pr is on . See U.S.S.G. § 5 G1.1 (b ). Thi s i s i m po rta nt . Glo ve r di d n otha ve a gu id el in es ran ge of 1 88 to 23 5 m on th s i n p ris on . Ins te ad , bec au se of h is pri or drug off en se s, h e h ada gu id el in es ran ge of l ife inpri so n. Tha t i s the gu id el in es ran ge th e PSR reco m m en de d, an d t he di st ric t co urt ad op te d t ha t re co m

m en da ti on . The g ov ern m en t fi le d am ot io n und er U.S.S.G. § 5K1 .1 s ta ti ng th atGlo ve r ha d p ro vi de d “ subs ta nt ia l as si st an ce” t o t he go ve rn m en t. Bas edon th atm ot io n, the di st ric t co urt d ep art eddo wnwar d fr om Glo ve r’s gu id el in es ran ge of l ife inpri so n a ndsen te nc edhi m to 20 4 m on th s i n p ris on on each co un t, wi th each sen te nc e to run co nc urren tl y . See 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (e) (“ Upo n m ot io n o f th e Gov ern m en t, the co urt s ha ll ha ve th e au th or ity to im po se a se nt en ce b el ow a l ev el est ab li sh edby statut e as a m in im um sen te nc e so as t o refl ecta de fen dant ’s subs ta nt ia l as si st an ce . . . .”); U.S.S.G. § 5K1 .1. Glo ve r di d 3 Case: 12-10580 Date Filed: 07/11/2012 Page: 3 of 12no t fi le a di rectap pe al .

InNov em

be r 20 11 , th e Uni te d S ta te s Se nt en ci ng Co m m is si on pro m

ul ga te d Am en dm en t 7 50 to th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es , whi ch , am on g o th er thi ng s, l owe red th e b as e o ffen se lev el fro m 38 to 34 forcrac k c oc ai ne off en se s l ik e Glo ve r’s th at in vo lv e 2 ki lo gr am s o f cra ckco cai ne . U.S.S.G. App . C, am en d. 7 50 ; s ee U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (c)( 3) (Nov . 20 11 ). The Se nt en ci ng Co m m is si on als o m ad e th atpa rt o f Am en dm en t 7 50 retro act iv e. See U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 0( c). Glo ve r fi le d apro se m ot io n u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) to reduc e h is se nt en ce, co nt en di ng th atun de r Am en dm en t 7 50 hi s n ew to ta l o ffen se lev el is 31 (a b as e o ffen se lev el of 3 4 wi th a 3- le ve l d ecre as e fo r acc ep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il it y), hi s cr im in al hi st ory cat eg ory is st il l II , m ak in g h is ne w gu id el in es ran ge 12 1 t o 1 51 m on th s i n p ris on . The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d t ha t m ot io n a fte r

“ co nc lu d[ in g] th at[Glo ve r] is n oteli gi bl e fo r a reduc ti on un de r Am en dm en t 7 50 .” Glo ve r fi le d am ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n, wh ic h t he di st ric t co urt al so de ni ed . Thi s i s Gl ov er’s ap pe al . II. W e tu rnfir stto th e g ov ern m en t’s co nt en ti on th atGlo ve r’s ap pe al is un ti m el y . W e rev ie w de n ov o wh ethe r anap pe al sh ou ldbe di sm is se d a s u nt im el y . See Un it edSta te s v . Lop ez, 5 62 F.3d13 09 , 13 11 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). A crim in al 4 Case: 12-10580 Date Filed: 07/11/2012 Page: 4 of 12de fen da ntha s 1 4 d ay s fr om th e d at e th atanord er o r jud gm en t i s en te redto fil e a no ti ce o f ap pe al . Fed . R. App . P. 4(b )(1 )(A). “ Altho ug h am ot io n fo r reco ns id erat io n o f a d is tri ctco urt o rd er i n acri m in al act io n i s n otex pr es sl y au th or iz edby the Fed eral Ru le s o f Cri m in al Pro cedur e,” the fil in g o f su cha m ot io n wi th in th e 1 4- da y pe rio d fo r fi li ng a no ti ce o f ap pe al “ to ll s the ti m e fo r fil in g ano ti ce o f ap pe al an d the ti m e b eg in s t o ru n a ne w fol lo win g d is po si ti on of th e m ot io n.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Vicar ia , 96 3 F .2d14 12 , 14 13 –1 4 (1 1th C ir. 1 99 2) (ci ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Diet er, 4 29 U.S. 6, 8 –9 , 97 S.Ct . 18 , 19 –2 0 (1 97 6) ).

“ Und er the ‘ pr is on m ai lb ox rul e,’ a pro se p ris on er’s co urt fi li ng is de em edfil ed on th e d at e itis de li ve redto pri so n aut ho rit ie s fo r m ai li ng .” W il li am s v . McNei l, 55 7 F .3d12 87 , 12 90 n.2 (11 thCir . 20 09 ); s ee Fe d. R. Ap p. 4 (c)( 1) (“ If an in m at e co nf in edinanin st itut io n fi le s a n ot ic e o f ap pe al ineit he r a ci vi l o r a cri m in al cas e, th e n ot ic e is ti m el y

if i t i s d ep os it edinth e in st itut io n’s i nt ern al m ai l s y st em on or be fo re the las t d ay

forfil in g.” ). Unl es s the re i s ev id en ce t o t he co nt rary, lik e pr is on lo gs or o th er re co rd s, we as su m e th ata pr is on er’s m ot io n was de li ve redto pr is on au th or it ie s o n t he da y he si gn edit . See Wash in gt on v. Un it edSta te s, 2 43 F.3 d 1 29 9, 1 30 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . The di stric t co urt d en ie d Gl ov er’s § 35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n o n Dec em be r 22 , 20 11 , andGlo ve r si gn edhi s m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n 1 4 d ay s l at er o n J anua ry 5, 5 Case: 12-10580 Date Filed: 07/11/2012 Page: 5 of 1220 12 , whi chto ll edth e p eri odforfil in g ano ti ce o f ap pe al . See Vic ari a, 96 3 F .2d

at14 13 –1 4. Th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d t he m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n o n J anua ry 17 , 20 12 , whi chres ta rte d Gl ov er’s 1 4- day pe rio d fo r fi li ng a no ti ce o f ap pe al . See id . Glo ve r si gn eda no ti ce o f ap pe al 7 d ay s l at er o n J anua ry 24 , 20 12 , so hi s ap pe al is ti m el y . III. Now fo r th e m eri ts is su e. Glo ve r co nt en ds th atth e co m bi ne d fo rce o f Am en dm en ts 75 0 a nd75 9 t o t he sen te nc in g g ui de li ne s m ak es hi m eli gi bl e fo r a se nt en ce re du ct io n u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) . W e rev ie w de n ov o adi stric t co urt’s co nc lu si on th ata de fen da ntis no t el ig ib le for a se nt en ce re du ct io n u nd er § 35 82 (c)( 2) . See Mi ll s, 6 13 F.3dat 1 07 4. A di st ric t co urt m ay

reduc e th e p ris on sen te nc e o f a “ de fen da ntwho ha s be ensen te nc edto a te rm

of i m pr is on m en t b as edon a se nt en ci ng ran ge th atha s subs eque nt ly beenlo weredby the Sen te nc in g C omm is si on .” 18 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) (em

ph as is ad de d) . Any

reduc ti on m

us t b e “ co ns is te ntwith app li cab le po li cy st at em en ts is su edby the Sen te nc in g C ommis si on .” Id . The Co m m is si on ’s po li cy st at em en t o n § 35 82 (c)( 2) reduc ti on s ex pl ai ns th at“ [a] redu ct io n i n t he de fen da nt ’s term

of i m pr is on m en t i s n otco ns is te ntwith t h[ e] po li cy st at em en t an d th eref or e is no t au th or iz edun de r 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) if . . . anam en dm en t . . . 6 Case: 12-10580 Date Filed: 07/11/2012 Page: 6 of 12do es no t h av e th e eff ectof l owe rin g t he de fen dant ’s app li cab le gu id el in e ran ge .” U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .10 (a)( 2) (B) (No v. 2 01 1) (em ph as is ad de d) . The co m

m en ta ry to th atpo li cy

st at em en t fu rth er ex pl ai ns : [A] redu ct io n i n t he de fen da nt ’s term of i m pr is on m en t i s n ot au th or iz edun de r 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) an d i s n otco ns is te ntwith th [e] po li cy

st at em en t i f . . . an am en dm en t . . . is ap pl ic ab le to a de fen da ntbu t the am en dm en t d oe s n otha ve th e eff ectof l owe rin g t he de fen da nt ’s app li cab le gu id el in e 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 (e.g ., a st atut ory m an da to ry m in im um term of i m pr is on m en t). Id . § 1 B1 .10 cmt. n .1(A) (em ph as is ad de d) . So, the st atut ory pro vi si on , th e Sen te nc in g C omm is si on ’s corres po nd in g p ol ic y st at em en t, an d t he co m

m en ta ry to th atpo li cy

st at em en t al l m ak e itcle ar tha t a c ou rt c an no t u se anam en dm en t t o reduc e a s en te nc e in a pa rti cu la r cas e unl es s tha t am en dm en t ac tu al ly lower s the gu id el in es ran ge inth atcas e. It i s tha t s im pl e. Anditm ak es sen se . The p ur po se of § 35 82 (c)( 2) is to gi ve a de fen da ntth e be ne fitof aretro act iv el y

ap pl ic ab le am en dm en t t o t he gu id el in es . Thatpro vi si on gi ve s the de fen da ntanop po rtu ni ty to re cei ve th e sa m e se nt en ce h e wou ldha ve rece iv edif t he gu id el in es th atap pl ie d a t the ti m e o f hi s s en te nc in g h adbe enth e sa m e as th e g ui de li ne s t ha t ap pl ie d a fte r th e am en dm en t. Bu t h e is no t t o re cei ve a lo wer s en te nc e th anhe wou ldha ve rece iv edif t he am en dm en t h adbe enineffe ct atth e ti m e o f hi s s en te nc in g. Th e g oa l i s t o t reata de fen da ntsen te nc edbe fo re the 7 Case: 12-10580 Date Filed: 07/11/2012 Page: 7 of 12am en dm en t the same as th os e se nt en cedaft er the am en dm en t. Tha t i s wh y an am en dm en t tha t al te rs th e in it ia l ca lc ul at io n o f a g ui de li ne s ra ng e is no t t o b e ap pl ie d i n acas e whe re the di ffer en ce i n t he in it ia l ca lc ul at io n wo ul d h av e m ad e no di ffer en ce b ecau se a m an da to ry m in im um wou ldha ve tru m

pe d t he in it ia l cal cu la ti on an d d ic ta te d t he fin al gu id el in es ran ge an y way . InMi ll s, we h el d t ha t “ [t]he law i s cl ear t ha t a s en te nc in g c ou rt l ack s juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er a § 35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n, ev enwhen anam en dm en t wo ul d lo wer the de fen da nt ’s othe rwis e-ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne s s en te nc in g rang e, whe n t he de fen da ntwas s en te nc edon th e b as is of am an da to ry m in im um .” 61 3 F .3dat 10 78 . Thatho ld in g c on tro ls he re. Glo ve r was sen te nc edba se d o n agu id el in es ran ge of l ife inpri so n b ecau se he was s ub ject t o ast atut ory

m an da to ry

m in im um li fe s en te nc e as a res ul t o f hi s p rio r fel on y dru g c on vi ct io ns . Becau se hi s gu id el in es ran ge was b as edona st atut ory m an da to ry

m in im um , Am en dm en t 7 50 di d n otlo wer Glo ve r’s gu id el in es ran ge . Becau se Am en dm en t 7 50 di d n otlo wer hi s g ui de li ne s ra ng e, Glo ve r is no t el ig ib le fora se nt en ce re du ct io n u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ). See M il ls , 61 3 F .3dat 1 07 8 (“ [T]he p ro vi si on go ve rn in g t he Defen da nt s’ sen te nc es , andth e p ro vi si on fro m whi chth e d is tri ctco urts gra nt ed subs ta nt ia l as si st an ce d ep artur es , was the ran ge setby the st atut ory m an da to ry m in im um , no t the Gui de li ne s s en te nc in g ra ng e fo r cra ckco cai ne off en se s tha t was 8 Case: 12-10580 Date Filed: 07/11/2012 Page: 8 of 12subs eque nt ly chan ge d b y Am en dm en t 7 06 .”); id . at 1 07 9 (“ The st atut ory m an da to ry

m in im um s t o wh ic h Def

en da nt s wer e subjec t m ean t tha t the y were n ot se nt en ced‘ ba se d o n asen te nc in g ra ng e’ sub se qu en tl y lo weredby Am en dm en t 70 6.” (qu ot in g 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) ). Glo ve r co nt en ds th atAm en dm en t 7 59 to th e g ui de li ne s ab ro ga te d o ur ho ld in g i n M il ls an d s im il ar d eci si on s an d g av e th e d is tri ctco urt au th or it y to lo wer h is sen te nc e b ecau se he pro vi de d s ub st an ti al ass is ta nc e to th e g ov ern m en t, ev enth ou gh ne it he r th atam en dm en t n or an y ot he r am en dm en t l owe redhi s ac tu al gu id el in es ran ge . He is wron g. Am en dm en t 7 59 , whi chth e Co m mis si on pr om ul ga te d a fte r we d eci de d M il ls , am en de d U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 0( b) (2 ). See U.S.S.G. App . C, am en d. 7 59 . Sect io n 1 B1 .10 (b )(2 )(A) p ro vi de s tha t a d is tri ct co urt m ay no t “ reduc e th e d efen da nt ’s term of i m pr is on m en t u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) . . . to a te rm

th atis les s tha n t he m in im um of t he am en de d g ui de li ne ran ge .” Befo re Am en dm en t 7 59 , an e xc ep ti onto th atli m it at io n a ll owe d adi st ric t co urt t o l owe r a d efen da nt ’s pri so n s en te nc e b el ow the am en de d g ui de li ne s ra ng e if t he ori gi na l s en te nc e was , foran y reas on , bel ow the ori gi na l g ui de li ne s ra ng e. See i d. § 1B 1.1 0( b) (2 )(B) (Nov . 20 10 ). AfterAm en dm en t 7 59 , ho wev er, a d is tri ct co urt m ay lo wer a d efen da nt ’s sen te nc e b el ow the am en de d g ui de li ne s ra ng e o nl y if t he ori gi na l s en te nc e was be lo w th e o rig in al gu id el in es ran ge be cau se th e 9 Case: 12-10580 Date Filed: 07/11/2012 Page: 9 of 12de fen da ntpro vi de d s ub st an ti al ass is ta nc e to th e g ov ern m en t. See U.S.S.G. §

1B 1.1 0( b) (2 )(B) (Nov . 20 11 ) (“ If the term of i m pr is on m en t i m

po se d was les s t ha n th e te rm of i m pr is on m en t p ro vi de d b y

th e g ui de li ne ran ge ap pl ic ab le to th e de fen da ntat t he ti m e o f se nt en ci ng pu rs ua ntto a go ve rn m en t m ot io n t o re fle ctth e de fen da nt ’s subs ta nt ia l as si st an ce t o aut ho rit ie s, a re du ct io n c om parab ly less th an th e am en de d g ui de li ne ran ge de te rm in edun de r subd iv is io n (1 ) of th is subs ect io n m ay be ap pr op ria te .”). Am en dm en t 7 59 di d n ot hi ng m or e th anli m ita di st ric t co urt’s au th or it y to reduc e a d efen da nt ’s sen te nc e b el ow the am en de d g ui de li ne s ra ng e. Con tra ry to 1 The Sentenc ing Commission ex plained its rea soning be hind the chang e: 1 The [pre-a

mendment] version of § 1B 1.10 . . . dr[ew] a . . . distinction for case s in which the ter

m of imprisonment was less than the minimum of the applica ble guideline ra

ng e, one r ule for downwar d depar

tures (statingthat “a reduction compar ably

less than the ame nded guideline ra ng e . . . may

be appr opriate” ) and another rule for varia nces ( stating that “a f

urther r eduction g enerally would not be appropriate’) . See § 1B 1.10(b)( 2)(B ). . . . The Commission has determined that, in the specific context of §1B1.10, a sing le limitation [ to sentence reduc tions below the amendment guidelines rang e] applicable to both depa rtures a nd varia nces f urthers theneed to avoid unwarranted se ntencingdisparities and avoids litigation in individual cases. The limit ation that prohibits a reduc tion below the amende d guideline ra

ng e in such c ases promotes confor mity with the amende d guideline ra

ng e and a voids undue complexity

and litigation. U.S.S.G. App. C, amend. 759, rea son for amend. The Commission decided to allow the district court to re duce a

defe ndant’s sente nce be low the amende d guidelines rang e only if that defe ndant was orig inally

sentenc ed below theorig inal guidelines rang e base d on substantial assistance, rea soning that “[t] he guidelines and the r eleva nt statutes have longrec ognized that defenda nts who provide substantial a ssistance a re diff ere ntly situated than other de fenda nts and should be considere d for a

sentenc e below a

guideline or statutory

minimumeven when def endants who a

re otherwise similar (but did not provide substantial assistance) are subject to a guideline or 10 Case: 12-10580 Date Filed: 07/11/2012 Page: 10 of 12Glo ve r’s arg um en t, the am en dm en t d oe s n otpe rm ita co urt t o re du ce a d efen da nt ’s

se nt en ce b as edon a gu id el in es am en dm en t tha t d oe s n otlo wer h is gu id el in es ran ge . Ins te ad , as we h av e d is cu ss ed , a co urt m ay reduc e a d efen da nt ’s sen te nc e un de r 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) ba se d o n aretro act iv e am en dm en t t o c rackco cai ne ba se off en se lev el s i f an d o nl y

if t ha t re tro act iv e am en dm en t ac tu al ly lower s the de fen da nt ’s gu id el in es ran ge . See 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) (“ [I]n the cas e o f a de fen da ntwho ha s b eensen te nc edto a te rm of i m pr is on m en t b as edon 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 . . . th e co urt m ay reduc e th e te rm

of i m pr is on m en t . . . .” (em

ph as is ad de d) ); U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 0 c m t. n .1(A) (“ [A] redu ct io n i n t he de fen da nt ’s term of im pr is on m en t i s n otau th or iz edun de r 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) an d i s n otco ns is te nt with t h[ e] po li cy

st at em en t i f . . . the am en dm en t d oe s n othave th e eff ectof lo weri ng th e d efen 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 (e.g ., a st atut ory m an da to ry

m in im um term of im pr is on m en t) ( em

ph as is ad de d) ); M il ls , 61 3 F .3dat 1 07 8. Gl ov er’s g ui de li ne s ran ge was— an d s ti ll is —l ife inpri so n. Nei th er Am en dm en t 7 50 no r 75 9 c ha ng es

statutory minimum .” I d. Glover a rgues that the Commission’s emphasis on substantial assistance in its reasoningundermines our holding in Mills, but itdoes not. Our holdingin Mill s controls this case be causeGlover’ s guidelines rang e is the same a fter the amendment a s it was befor e. 11

Case: 12-10580 Date Filed: 07/11/2012 Page: 11 of 12th at . Andbe cau se ne it he r am en dm en t ch an ge s h is gu id el in es ran ge , Glo ve r is no t

en ti tl edto res en te nc in g u nd er § 35 82 (c)( 2) . AFFIRMED.

12 Case: 12-10580 Date Filed: 07/11/2012 Page: 12 of 12