[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 12 39 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 5 :9 3- cr-0 00 50 -CAR- 1

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

ve rs us JERR Y LEE BROWN,
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll D efen 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 ur t for th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of Ge or gi a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 26 , 20 12 ) Befo re MAR CUS, WILSON an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es
. PER CURI AM:

Case: 12-12399 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 1 of 6Je rry Bro wn ap pe al s fro m th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of hi s m ot io n to red uc e hi s

se nt en ce un de r 18 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2)

. In th e or ig in al pr oc eed in g, Bro wn pl ed gu il ty
pu rs ua nt to a writ te n pl ea ag reem e n t t o po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e

m et ha m ph et am in e, in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 )

. U s in g pr io r rel ev an t

co nd uc t, th e pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t (“ PSI” ) at tri bu te d to Bro wn 2.5 po un ds of co cai ne an d 24 po un ds of met h a mp he ta m in e, cal cu la te d hi s ba se of fen se le ve l

us in g U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1, an d en ha nc ed hi s ran ge un de r U.S.S.G. § 3B 1

. 1 ( a ) fo r Bro wn’s le ad ers hi p ro le

. The d is tri ct co ur t de cl in ed to co ns id er al l th e rel ev an t

co nd uc t co nt ai ne d in th e PSI, de te rm in ed th at Bro wn’s to ta l be gi nn in g of fen se le ve l

was 30 , an d th en de pa rte d up ward n i ne le ve ls un de r U.S.S.G. § 5K2 .0 ba se d on a

m ur de r-fo r-h ire sc he m e in vo lv in g fo ur po te nt ia l vi ct im s. The co ur t se nt en ced Bro wn
to li fe im pr is on m en t. In 20 10 , B r o w n fil ed a pr o se § 35 82 (c)( 2) pu rs ua nt to th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es ’ Am en dm en t 5 91 , whi ch th e d is tri ct co ur t d en ie d.
On ap pe al , Bro wn arg ue s: (1 ) th at un de r Am en dm en t 59 1, hi s se nt en ce is ov er th e st at ut or y m ax im

um se nt en ce of 40 y ears ’ im pr is on m en t fo un d in § 84 1( b) (1 )(B)
th at he al le ge s ap pl ie s to hi s of fen se ; (2 ) th at hi s tri al co un se l was in effe ct iv e be cau se

co un se l in di cat ed th at hi s se nt en ce wou ld be li m it ed to 92 to 11 5 m on th s, an d co un se l di d no t un de rs ta nd th e pl ea ag reem en t; an d (3 ) in hi s rep ly br ie f, th at th e go ve rn m en t

m is rep res en te d th e fact s to us , an d, in li gh t of DePi erre v. Uni te d St at es , 56 4 U.S.

__ ,

2 Case: 12-12399 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 2 of 613 1 S.Ct

. 22 25 (2 01 1) , th e id en ti ty an d qu an ti ty of dr ug s are el em en ts of th e of fen se th at m us t b e p ro ve d b ey on d a reas on ab le do ub t. Aft er ca refu l re vi ew, we affi rm
. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on whe th er to red uc e a de fen da nt ’s se nt en ce
pu rs ua nt to 18 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) , ba se d on a su bs eq ue nt ch an ge to th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s, fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v. Br o w n , 3 3 2 F.3 d 13 41 , 13 43 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3)

. W he n a de fen da nt is se nt en ced ba se d on a se nt en ci ng ran ge th at is

su bs eq ue nt ly lo wered by th e Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 99 4( o) , th e di s t r i c t c ou rt ha s di sc ret io n un de r 18 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) to red uc e th e de fen da nt ’s te rm of im

pr is on m en t. Uni te d St at es v. Brav o, 20 3 F.3 d 77 8, 78 0 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 00 ). Howev e r , § 35 82 (c)( 2) do es no t gr an t th e di st ric t co ur t juri sd ic ti on to

reco ns id er al l or ig in al se nt en ci ng de te rm in at io ns
. Id

. at 78 1. Mo reo ve r, th e di st ric t

co ur t m ay no t m od ify an im po se d te rm of im

pr is on m en t up on a § 35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n

un le ss th e de fen da nt ’s se nt en ci ng ran ge was su bs eq ue nt ly lo wered by an am en dm en t
to th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es . Id. at 78 0- 81

. Am en dm en t 59 1 be cam e effe ct iv e on Nov em be r 1, 20 00 , an d is ret ro act iv el y
ap pl ic ab le . U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 0( c); U.S.S.G. Ap p. C, Am en d. 59 1. Th e am en dm en t ad de d la ng ua ge to U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 (a) in st ru ct in g th e di st ric t co ur t to “ [d ]eterm in e,
p u r s u a n t to § 1B 1.2 (Ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne s) , th e of fen se gu id el in e se ct io n fro m

3 Case: 12-12399 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 3 of 6Ch ap te r Two (Offen se Co nd uc t) app li cab le to th e of fen se of co nv ic ti on .” U.S.S.G. App

. C, Am en d. 59 1. Fu rth erm or e, Am en dm en t 59 1 cha ng ed U.S.S.G. § 1B1 .2(a ),
in st ru ct in g th e se nt en ci ng co ur t t o “ [r]efer to th e St at ut or y In de x (Ap pe nd ix A) to de te rm in e th e Ch ap te r Two o ffen se gu id el in e, refe ren ced in th e St at ut or y In de x fo r
t h e of fen se of co nv ic ti on
. . . . Fo r st at ut or y pr ov is io ns no t li st ed in th e St at ut o r y In de x, u se th e m os t an al og ou s g ui de li ne .” Id

. In Uni te d S ta te s v . Mo ren o, we ex pl ai ne d t ha t Am en dm en t 5 91

was de si gn ed to cl ari fy whe th er en ha nc ed pe na lt ie s pr ov i d e d b y U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .2 (rela ti ng to dr ug of fen se s ne ar pr ot ect ed lo cat io ns or in vo lv in g un de rag e or pr eg n a n t in di vi du al s) ap pl y on ly whe re th e of fen se of co nv ic ti o n i s refe ren ced to th at gu id el in e, or whe th er su ch en ha nc ed pe na lt ie s can be us ed whe ne ve r a de f e nd an t’s rel ev an t, un ch a r ge d co nd uc t in cl ud es dr ug sa le s in a pr ot ect ed lo cat io n or dr ug sa le s in vo lv in g a pr ot ect ed in di vi du al

. Sp eci fic al ly, in or de r fo r th e en ha nc ed pe na lt ie s in § 2D1 .2 to ap pl y , th e de fen da nt m us t be co nv ic te d of an of fen se refe ren ced to § 2D1 .2, rat he r th an si m pl y ha ve en ga ge d in co nd uc t d es cri be d b y

th at gu id el in e. 42 1 F.3 d 1 2 1 7 , 1 2 19 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ) (q uo ta ti on s an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. In
pr om ul ga ti ng Am en dm en t 59 1, th e Sen te nc in g Co m m is si o n w as aware th at ot he r
gu id el in e se ct io ns face d is su es si m il ar to § 2D1 .2. See U.S.S.G. App

. C, Am en d. 59 1 (“ Rea so n f

o r Am en dm en t” ). The St at ut or y In de x of th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s Man ua l in di cat es th at § 2D1 .1 is th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e s ect io n fo r § 84 1( a) of fen se s. U.S.S.G. App . A.

4

Case: 12-12399 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 4 of 6Am en dm en t 59 1, ho wev er, on ly ap pl ie s to th e se le ct io n of th e rel ev an t of fen se
gu id el in e, no t th e se le ct i o n o f a ba se of fen se le ve l wit hi n th e ap pl ic ab le of fen se
gu id el in e. M o ren o, 42 1 F.3 d at 12 19 -2 0. Fu rth erm or e, Am en dm en t 59 1 do es no t

co ns tra i n t h e u s e of jud ic ia ll y fo un d fact s to se le ct a ba se of fen se le ve l wit hi n th e rel ev an t g ui de li ne . Id. Here, th e di st ri c t c o u r t d id no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g Bro wn’s §
35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n. Bro wn’s ba se of fen se le ve l was co rrec tl y de te rm in ed by § 2D1 .1, whi ch is th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e se ct io n fo r § 84 1( a) of fen se s. U.S.S.G. App

. A. He

co nc ur s th at § 2D1 .1 is th e co rrec t gu id el in e, bu t as se rts th at hi s of fen se le ve l sh ou ld
ha ve be en 26

. Alt ho ug h it is un cl ear whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t at se nt en ci ng as si gn ed

a ba se of fen se le ve l of 26 an d th en ad de d 4 le ve ls fo r Bro wn’s le ad ers hi p ro le or

as si gn ed a ba se of

fen se le ve l of 30 , Am en dm en t 59 1 ne it he r affe ct ed th e se le ct io n of

a ba se of fen se le ve l wit hi n § 2D1 .1, no r am en de d U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.1

. See Mo ren o, 42 1 F.3 d at 12 20 ; U.S.S.G. App

. C, Am en d. 59 1. The am en dm en t al so di d no t am en d de pa rtu res un de r § 5K2 .0. U.S.S.G. App

. C, Amen d

. 5 9 1. Thu s, § 35 82 (c) is
in ap pl ic ab le to Bro wn’s ar gu m en ts

. As fo r Bro wn’s cl ai m s reg ard in g hi s se nt en ce ex cee d i n g th e st at ut or y

m ax im um an d in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un s e l , th es e cl ai m s are no t ba se d on an

am en dm en t to th e Gui de li ne s m ad e ret ro act iv e by th e Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on
.

5 Case: 12-12399 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 5 of 6The refo re, th e d is tri ct co ur t co ul d no t lo wer Bro wn’s se nt en ce un de r § 35 82 (c)( 2)

pu rs ua nt to th es e arg um en ts

. See Brav o, 20 3 F

. 3 d a t 7 80 -8 1. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm
. 1
AFFIRMED.

I n addition, we do not consider Br own’s ar g ument reg arding DePierr e bec ause he raises 1 it for the first time in his reply brief. See United States v. Mag luta, 418 F.3d 1166, 1185 ( 11th Cir. 2005) (“[A]n appellant may not raise a

n issue for the f

irst time in a reply

brief.” ). I n any event, B rown’s c laim that the g overnme nt misreprese nted the fa cts and c ommitt ed fr aud does not implicate a r etroa ctive ame ndment to the Sentencing Guidelines, so that ar g ument cannot be a basis to lower his sentenc e under § 3582(c) (2). B ravo, 203 F .3d at 780-81.

6 Case: 12-12399 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 6 of 6