FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T APRI L 30, 200 9 T HOMAS K . K AHN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 14 32 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock et No. 0 4- 00 01 0- CR-B AE-6
UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us JERM AINE MCKEEVER, 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 ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ap ril 30 , 20 09 ) Befo re BI RCH, HULL and MARCUS , Cir cu it Ju dg es
. PER CURI AM:
Je rm ai ne McKe ev er, a fed eral pr is on er pr oc eed in g pr o se , ap pe al s fro m th e di s tri ct co ur t’s de ni al of hi s m ot io n fo r a red uc ed se nt en ce un de r 18 U.S.C. §
35 82 (c)( 2) ba se d on Am en dm en ts 70 6 an d 71 1 to th e Sen te n c i n g Gui de li ne s. Onap pe al , McKe ev er arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by ba si ng it s

de ci si on on th e sa m e reas on s it us ed at se nt en ci ng , by fai li ng t o c o n s i d e r ot he r rel ev an t fact or s, an d by fai li ng to co ns id er th e crac k- co cai ne d i sp ari ty un de r Kim br ou gh v. Uni te d St at es , 12 8 S. Ct

. 55 8 (2 00 7)

. Afte r care fu l rev ie w, we affi rm
. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s d e c i s i o n whe th er to red uc e a se nt en ce un de r § 35 82 (c)( 2) fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n an d it s co nc lu si on s reg ard in g th e sc op e of it s le ga l au th or it y de no vo
. Uni te d S t a t e s v. Ja m es , 54 8 F.3 d 98 3, 98 4 & n.1 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 08 ); Un it ed Sta te s v . Vaut ie r, 14 4 F .3d 75 6, 7 59 n.3 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ).
A di st ric t co ur t m ay m od ify a te rm of im pr is on m en t in th e cas e of a de fen da nt who was se nt en ced to a te rm of im pr is on m en t ba se d on a gu id el in e r a n g e t h a t ha s be en lo wered su bs eq ue nt ly by th e Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on
. 18 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2)

. The di st ric t co ur t m

us t m ak e two de te rm in at io ns be fo re deci di ng whe th er to redu ce

a se nt en ce u nd er § 35 82 (c)( 2) : (1 ) it “ m us t su bs ti tu te th e am en de d gu id el in e ran ge fo r th e or ig in al ly ap pl ie d gu id el in e ran ge an d de te rm in e wha t se nt en ce it wou ld ha ve i mp o se d” ; an d (2 ) it “ m

us t co ns id er th e fact or s li st ed in [1 8 U.S.C.] § 35 53 (a) an d de te rm in e whe th er or no t to red uc e th e de fen da nt ’s or ig in al se nt en ce.” Vau ti er, 14 4
F.3 d a t 7 60

. Here, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s d i s cret io n by de nyin g McKe ev er’s § 35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n be cau se th e co ur t pr op erl y fo ll owe d th e two -s te p pr oc es s
2ou tl in ed in Vau ti er, 14 4 F.3 d at 76 0- 63

. Fi rs t, th e di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y cal cu la te d

th e a m en de d gu id el in e ran ge of 87 to 10 8 m on th s, gi ve n an am en de d of fen se le ve l of 27 an d a cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y of III. See U.S.S.G., Sen te nc in g Tab le

. Nex t,

as th e r eco rd sh ows , th e di st ric t co ur t co ns id ered th e rel ev an t se nt en ci ng fact or s -- in cl ud in g McKe ev er’s pe rs on al hi st or y a n d c ha ract eri st ic s an d th e ne ed to av oi d

un warra nt ed se nt en ci ng di sp ari ti es -- in fin di ng th at a red uc ti on was no t warra nt ed

. In li gh t of th is reco rd , th e di st ric t co ur t di d n o t a b u s e i t s di sc ret io n in de nyin g M c Keev er’s § 35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n, an d co nt rary to McKe ev er’s as se rti on s, “[t ]h e di st ric t co ur t [was ] no t req ui red to art ic ul at e sp eci fic al ly th e ap pl ic ab il it y , if an y , of each fact or .” Vaut ie r, 14 4 F .3d at 7 62

. M o r e o v e r , un de r ou r co nt ro ll in g cas e la w, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in

co nc lu di ng th at it la ck ed au th or i t y to ap pl y Kim br ou gh to hi s § 35 82 (c)( 2)
pr oc eed in gs
. See Uni te d St at es v. Mel vi n, 55 6 F.3 d 11 90 , 11 92 -9 3 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 09 ) (h ol di ng th a t K im

br ou gh do es no t ap pl y to § 35 82 (c)( 2) pr oc eed in gs ), pe ti ti on fo r
cert . fil ed , (U.S. Feb . 10 , 20 09 ) (No . 08 -8 66 4) . There fo re, we aff irm.
AFFIRMED. 1

Acc ording ly , McKe ever ’s motion to appoint counsel for ora l arg ument is DENI ED as 1 MOOT. 3