FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT MAY 29, 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- 14080 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D oc ke tN o. 99- 00074- C R - 004 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 J U A N M U Z A , 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 So u th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( M ay 29, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

J ua n M uz a , pr oc e e di ng pr o s e , appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of hi s 18 U . S . C . § 3582( c ) ( 2) m ot i on f oras e nt e nc e r e duc t i on. T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d not abuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng M uza’ s m ot i on , because i tprop er l y f ou nd that G ui del i nes A m endm ent65 7, w hi ch appl i es excl usi vel y t o o xycodo ne, w as i napp l i cabl e bec ause M uza’ s c as e i nv ol ved a di ff er entdrug , hydrom orph on e, w hi c h i s know n by the tr a de na m e D i l audi d. I n a ddi t i on, the di s tr i c tc our tdi d not ha ve j ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de rA m e ndm e nt s 484 a nd 517, be c aus e the y w e r e not

“ s ub s e q u e n t ” a m e n d m e n t s wi th i n th e m e a n i n g o f § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we A F F I R M . I . B AC KG RO UN D A g ran d j u ry i n d i ct ed M u za an d fo u r o th ers fo r: (1 ) co n sp i racy t o p o ssess w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e m ore than 4 , 48 8 t abl et s of D i l audi d, a S chedul e I I c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e , in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d 8 4 6 ; ( 2 ) p o s s e s s i o n w i th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e D i l au d i d , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U . S. C. § 841( a ) ( 1) a nd 18 U . S . C . § 2; a nd ( 3) tr a ve l i ng i n i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e w i th the i n t e n tt o p o s s e s s w i th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e D i l au d i d , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U . S. C. § 1 95 2(a) . In a j ury tri al , M uza w as foun d g ui l ty on al l three coun t s. In the pres ent ence i nve s t i ga t i on r e por t( “ P S I ” ) , the pr oba t i on of f i c e rc a l c ul a t e d aba s e of f e ns e l e ve l of3

34 , pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 2 D 1. 1(c) (3). A cc ordi ng t o the P S I, M uza w as i nv ol ved w i th appr oxi m a t e l y 27, 000 D i l audi d t abl e t s . E a c h D i l audi d t abl e tw e i ghe d 90 m i l l i gr a m s a nd c ont a i ne d the c ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e hy dr om orphone . B a s e d on the drug equi val encyt abl es foun d i n § 2D 1. 1, ea ch gram of hydrom orph on e w as e q u iv a le n t to 2 .5 k ilo g r a m s o f m a r iju a n aa n d , th e r e f

o r e , M u z aw a s in v o lv e d w ith the equi val entof 6, 07 5 k i l og ra m s of m ar i j uana. A tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, the di s tr i c tc our tf ound tha tthe num be rof D i l audi d t abl e t s i nvol ve d e xc e e de d 14, 000, w hi c h, ba s e d on ape rt abl e tw e i ghtof 90 m i l l i gram s, w as equi val entt o 3 , 15 0 k i l og ra m s of m ar i j uana. T he di stri ctcourt d e t e rm i n e d , th e r e f

o r e , th a tMu z ah a d ab a s e o f f e n s e l e v e l o f

3 4 . U. S . S . G. § 2 D 1 .1 ( c ) ( 3 ) . T he di s tr i c tc our ts e nt e nc e d M uz at o at e rm of 292 m onths of i m pri sonm ent . W e a ff

i rm ed M uza’ s c on vi ct i on s and se nt ence and fou nd no cl ea r e rr o rin th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e te rm in a tio n o f d ru g q u a n tity . T he r e a f t e r , M uz af

i l e d am ot i on t o r e duc e hi s s e nt e nc e , pur s ua ntt o 18 U . S . C . § 3582( c ) ( 2) . M uz aa r gue d tha tA m e ndm e nt s 657, 484, and 517 of the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes app l i ed re troac t i vel y t o h i s c as e and as se rt ed the pri nci pal thatdrug t abl et s c om e i n v ar i abl e dosages , and thaton l y the po rt i on of the t abl et tha tc ont a i ns the c ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e i n que s t i on s houl d be us e d t o de t e rm i ne the d ru g q u a n tity to b e u s e d f o rs e n te n c in g p u rp o s e s . H e a r g u e d th a t th e D ilau d id4

t abl e t s i nvol ve d i n thi s c a s e c ont a i ne d onl y 4 m i l l i gr a m s of hy dr om orphone , not the ful l t abl etw ei gh tof 90 m i l l i gram s thatM uza had been hel d acc ou nt abl e f or at hi s s e nt e nc i ng. B a s e d on the drug e qui va l e nc y t abl e s , 4 m i l l i gr a m s of hy dr om orphone w a s e qui va l e ntt o 350 ki l ogr a m s of m a r i j ua naa nd, the r e f

or e , he c o n te n d e d , h e s h o u ld h a v e h a d ab a s e o f f e n s e le v e l o f

2 6 , n o t 3 4 a s w a s o r ig in a lly c a l c ul a t e d. A f

t e rappl y i ng the appl i c abl e e nha nc e m e nt s t o a n of f e ns e l e ve l of

26, M u z aw o u ld h a v e o n ly b e e n s u b je c t to aG u id e lin e s r a n g e o f 1 2 1 to 1 5 1 m o n th s . T here fore , M uza a ss ert ed thatA m endm ent s 657 , 48 4, and 5 17 re qu i re d the di stri ct co u rtt o red u ce h i s sen t en ce, p u rsu an tt o § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2 ), an d th atth e fai l u re t o d o so w ou l d con st i tut e a n E qu al P rot ec t i on vi ol at i on . In the al t ernat i ve, M uza a rgued tha the w a s e nt i t l e d t o the rul e of l e ni ty be c aus e the a m e ndm e nt s w e r e a m bi guous a s t o w he the rthe G ui de l i ne s c a l c ul a t i on r e l i e d on the w e i ghtof the t abl e torthe a c tu a l w e ig h t o f

th e c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e w ith in th e tab le t. T he di stri ctcourtdeni ed M uza’ s m ot i on t o reduce hi s s ent ence . T he di stri ct c our tf ound tha tA m e ndm e nt657, w hi c h a l t e r e d the drug e qui va l e nc y t abl e s f or ox yc od on e, di d n otappl y i n thi s c as e bec ause M uza w as se nt ence d for offense s i nvol vi ng hy dr om orphone ( D i l audi d) . F ur the r , the c our tf ound tha tA m e ndm e nt 6 5 7 w a s n o t a m b ig u o u s b e c au s e it e x p lic itly a n d r e p e a te d ly lim its its r e a c h to oxy c odone , a nd, the r e f

or e , the c our tr e

j e c t e d M uz a ’ s rul e of

l e ni ty a r gum e nt . T he5

c our ta l s o f

ound tha ta l though A m e ndm e nt s 657, 484, a nd 517 a r guabl y r e f l e c t e d a tr e nd t ow a r ds how the w e i ghtof drugs i n t abl e tf

orm s houl d be m e a s ur e d, the a m e ndm e nt s di d notappl y t o the drug hy dr om orphone , a nd the c our tc oul d not r e d u c e M u z a ’s s e n te n c e b a s e d s o le ly o n th e p o s s ib ility o f f u tu r e a m e n d m e n ts . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e c lin e d to g r a n t M u z ale a v e to p r o c e e d in f o rm ap au p e r is (“ IF P ”) o n ap p eal b ecau se M u za’ s § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2 ) m o t i o n l ack ed m eri t . W e al so deni ed M uza l ea ve t o p roce ed IF P , fi nd i ng thatM uza’ s argum enton appeal w as fr i vo l ou s, as M uza had fai l ed t o st at e acl ai m up on w hi ch re l i ef coul d b e gra nt ed b e c au s e A m e n d m e n t 6 5 7 e x p lic itly ap p lie s e x c lu s iv e ly to o x y c o d o n e . I I . DI S CUS S I ON M u z aa r g u e s o n ap p e a l th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n to r e d u c e h is s e n te n c e b e c au s e A m e n d m e n ts 6 5 7 , 4 8 4 , a n d 5 1 7 d e m o n s tr a te th a t o n ly the a c tua l w e i ghtof

the c ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e s houl d be us e d f orpurpos e s of se nt enci ng . B oth o xycodo ne and h ydrom orph on e are l i st ed i n the gu i del i nes a s S c he dul e I orI I opi a t e s a nd, the r e f or e , he c ont e nds , i ti s a n E qua l P r ot e c t i on vi ol a t i on t o tr e a tthe tw o drugs di f f e r e nt l y . H e a l s o a r gue s tha tthe buf f e rpor t i on of the t abl e t s s houl d be e xc l ude d f r om the t ot a l w e i ght . T he “ c rux” of A m e ndm e nt 6 5 7 is th a t d ru g s in tab le t f o rm , s u c h a s h y d r o m o rp h o n e ( D ilau d id ) , c o m e in va r i abl e dos a ge s . H e a r gue s tha tthe D i l audi d t abl e t s i nvol ve d i n the i ns t a ntUnited States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005). 1 6 of f e ns e c ont a i ne d onl y 4 m i l l i gr a m s of hy dr om orphone , not90 m i l l i gr a m s f or w hi c h he w a s he l d a c c ount abl e . B a s e d on 14, 000 t abl e t s and ape r - t abl e tw e i ghtof 4 m illig r a m s , M u z aa r g u e s th a t h e s h o u ld h a v e h a d ab a s e o f f e n s e le v e l o f

o n ly 2 6 . A p p lyin g th e a p p li ca b le en h an ce m en ts to th is b as e o ff en se lev el, M u za ’s G ui de l i ne s r a nge w oul d be 121 t o 151 m onths a nd, the r e f or e , he c ont e nds , the se nt ence ac tual l y i m po se d i s s ub st ant i al l y pre j ud i ci al . H e a ss ert s thatthe di stri ct co u rt h ad th e a u th o rity an d ju risd icti o n u n d er§ 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ) to re d u ce M u za ’s s e nt e nc e i n r e s pons e t o the a m e ndm e nt s . A l t e rna t i ve l y , M uz ai nvoke s the rul e of l e ni ty be c aus e of

the a m bi gui ty w i thi n the a m e ndm e nt s c onc e rni ng the l a c k of d is tin c tio n b e tw e e n h y d r o m o rp h o n e a n d o x y c o d o n e . In hi s r epl y bri ef

, M uza a l so ar gu es for the fi rs tt i m e thatthe di stri ctcourt com m i tt ed a B oo ker error because i tse nt ence d h i m un der am andat ory gui del i nes 1 s c h e m e . B e c au s e o f

th is B o o k e re rr o r , h e a r g u e s , th e c o u r t n e v e rc o n s id e r e d h is ru le o f le n ity a n d E q u a l P r o te c tio n a r g u m e n ts . I n a d d itio n , M u z ar e a s s e r ts h is E qu al P rot ec t i on cl ai m thathydrom orph on e ( D i l audi d), w hi ch i s aS chedul e I or II opi a t e l i ke oxy c odone , s houl d be tr e a t e d the s a m e w a y a s oxy c odone a nd, th e r e f o r e , th e a m e n d m e n ts s h o u ld b e ap p lie d to h is s e n te n c e .7

A s apr e l i m i na ry m a tt e r , be c aus e M uz ar a i s e s hi s B ooke ra r gum e ntf orthe fi rs tt i m e i n h i s r epl y bri ef , thatar gu m enti s notprop er l y bef ore us. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. E vans, 47 3 F . 3d 11 15 , 11 20 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). A di s tr i c tc our t ’ 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 ntt o 18 U . S . C . § 3 58 2(c) (2) i s r evi ew ed for a n abu se of di sc re t i on . U ni t ed S t at es v. W hi t e, 305 F . 3d 1264, 1267 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . S e c t i on 3582( c ) ( 2) “ doe s notgr a ntt o the c our tj ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de re xtr a ne ous r e s e n te n c in g is s u e s .” U n ite d S ta te s v . B r a v o , 2 0 3 F .3 d 7 7 8 , 7 8 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . I ns t e a d, § 3582( c ) ( 2) pe rm i t s adi s tr i c tc our tt o m odi f y a n i m pos e d t e rm of i m pr i s onm e nt“ i n the c a s e of ade f e nda ntw ho ha s be e n s e nt e nc e d t o at e rm of i m pr i s onm e ntba s e d on as e nt e nc i ng r a nge tha tha s s ubs e que nt l y be e n l ow e r e d by th e S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 9 9 4 ( o ) .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 35 82 (c )( 2). A m e ndm e nt657, w hi c h be c a m e e f f e c t i ve i n N ove m be r2003, m odi f i e d the w a y in w h ic h th e d ru g o x y c o d o n e is m e a s u r e d f o rf e d e r a l s e n te n c in g p u rp o s e s . S e e U . S . S . G . A pp. C , V ol . I I , A m e nd. 657. A s ar e s ul tof the a m e ndm e nt , the a c tua l w e i ghtof

the oxy c odone c ont a i ne d w i thi n the t abl e ts houl d be us e d f or sen t en ci n g p u rp o ses. T h e reaso n fo r th e am en d m en tw as t o ad d ress

“ prop ort i on al i ty i ss ues i n the se nt enci ng of ox yc od on e tra ff i cki ng offe nses . ” S ee8

i d. , R e a s on f

orA m e nd. V a ry i ng a m ount s of oxy c odone a r e f

ound i n pr e s c r i pt i on pai n rel i ever s thatar e genera l l y s ol d i n t abl etform . T he prop ort i on al i ty i ss ues a r os e be c aus e di f

f e r e ntm e di c a t i ons c ont a i n di f f e r e ntf orm ul a t i ons a nd di f

f e r e nt a m o u n ts o f

o x y c o d o n e m a y e x is t in tab le ts o f th e s a m e w e ig h t. H e r e , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng M uz a ’ s m ot i on for am od i fi ca t i on of hi s s ent ence , pu rs uantt o A m endm ent65 7, because that a m e ndm e ntha s no appl i c a t i on t o thi s c a s e . M uz adoe s notdi s put e tha tthe drug in v o lv e d in th is c a s e w a s h y d r o m o rp h o n e ( D ilau d id ) . A m e n d m e n t 6 5 7 is in ap p lic ab le , b e c au s e th e a m e n d m e n t ap p lie s e x c lu s iv e ly a n d e x p lic itly to ox yc od on e. S ee U . S . S . G . A pp . C , V ol . II , A m end. 65 7. M oreover, the di stri ct courtcorr ec t l y det erm i ned thatA m endm ent65 7 w as un am bi gu ou s and , there fore , M uz aw a s note nt i t l e d t o the rul e of l e ni ty . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. J e t e r , 329 F . 3d 1 2 2 9 , 1 2 3 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) ( h o ld in g th a t th e ru le o f le n ity ap p lie s to the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes w here there i s a m bi gu i ty) . A s t o M u za’ s arg u m en t s b ased u p o n A m en d m en t s 4 8 4 an d 5 1 7 , b ecau se M u z aw a s s e n te n c e d in 2 0 0 0 , A m e n d m e n t 4 8 4 , w h ic h b e c a m e e f f e c tiv e in N ove m be r1993, a nd A m e ndm e nt517, w hi c h be c a m e e f f e c t i ve i n N ove m be r1995, w e r e not“ s ubs e que nt ” a m e ndm e nt s . S e e 18 U . S . C . § 3582( c ) ( 2) ; U . S . S . G . A pp. C , V o l. I , A m e n d s . 4 8 4 , 5 1 7 . T h u s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t h a v e ju r is d ic tio n to9

consi der them . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. S t osse l , 34 8 F . 3d 13 20 , 13 22 n. 2 (11 th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) ( s ta tin g th a t am o tio n c o u ld b e a d d r e s s e d u n d e r§ 3 5 8 2 ( c ) o n ly i f the appe l l a ntw a s a r gui ng tha thi s s e nt e nc e s houl d be m odi f i e d “ ba s e d on a s u b s e q u e n t s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e a m e n d m e n t” ) . F i nal l y, the di stri ctcourtw as corr ec tt o d ec l i ne t o con si der M uza’ s E qu al P r ot e c t i on a r gum e ntbe c aus e the c our tw a s w i thoutj ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de ra n extraneou s i ss ue. S ee B ra vo , 20 3 F . 3d at78 2 (fi nd i ng thatthe di stri ctcourt p r o p e r ly d e c lin e d to c o n s id e rth e ap p e lla n t’s E ig h th A m e n d m e n t a r g u m e n t, be c aus e § 3582( c ) doe s notgr a ntj ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de r“ e xtr a ne ous r e s e nt e nc i ng is s u e s ” ) . I I I . CONCL US I ON B a s e d u p o n th e f

a c ts a n d la w s e t o u t ab o v e , w e f in d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng M uz a ’ s m ot i on f oras e nt e nc e r e duc t i on pu rs uantt o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 58 2(c) (2). AF F I RME D.