[PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 11 15 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 1- cr-0 04 26 -ASG-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us GREGORY RANDOLPH BERRY, 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 14 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, HU LL andPRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Greg ory R. Berry , a fed eral pri so ne r co nv ic te d o f a cra ck co cai ne off

en se , Case: 12-11150 Date Filed: 11/14/2012 Page: 1 of 7ap pe al s t he di 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 fo r a

se nt en ce re du ct io n b as edon Am en dm en t 7 50 to th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es , whi ch rev is edth e cra ckco cai ne qu an ti ty tab le s i n U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1. See U.S.S.G. App . C, am en d. 7 50 (Nov . 20 11 ). Afterrev ie w, we affi rm . 1 Und er § 35 82 (c)( 2) , 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 b een sen 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 pu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 9 94 (o ).” 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) ; s ee al so U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .10 (a)( 1) . The g ro un ds up onwhi cha di st ric t co urt m ay reduc e a de fen da nt ’s sen te nc e p ur su an t t o § 35 82 (c)( 2) are qui te na rro w. Unit edSta te s v . Arm st ro ng , 34 7 F .3d90 5, 9 09 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). The Se nt en ci ng Co m m is si on m us t h av e am en de d t he Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es , pu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 9 94 (o ), th atgu id el in es am en dm en t m us t h av e lo weredth e d efen dant ’s sen te nc in g ra ng e, an d i t m us t al so be on e th atis li st edinU.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .10 (c). See 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ); U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 0( a)(1 ) & cmt. n .1(A) ; s ee al so Arm stro ng , 34 7 F.3 d a t 9 09 . Fu rth erm or e, “ [w]here aretro act iv el y ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e am en dm en t

“We re view de novo a

district court’s c onclusions about the scope of its leg al authority 1 under 18 U .S.C. § 3582(c)(2) .” United States v. Jones, 548 F.3d 1366, 1368 (11th Cir. 2008). 2 Case: 12-11150 Date Filed: 11/14/2012 Page: 2 of 7reduc es 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

up on whi chhi s o r he r se nt en ce was ba se d, § 35 82 (c)( 2) do es no t au th or iz e a reduc ti on insen te nc e.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Mo or e, 54 1 F .3d13 23 , 13 30 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ); s ee al so U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .10 (a)( 2) (B). In ot he r wor ds , a reduc ti on is no t au th or iz edif t he am en dm en t d oe s n otactua ll y lo wer a 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 pr ov is io n,” su chas ast atut ory m an da to ry

m in im um pri so n t erm . U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .10 cmt. n .1(A) . For t hi s re as on , when a de fen da nt ’s gu id el in es sen te nc e o f li fe was ba se d o n the st atut ory m an da to ry

m in im um in21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (b )(1 )(A), Am en dm en t 7 50 do es no t l owe r th atgu id el in es sen te nc e, an d t he de fen da ntis no t el ig ib le fora § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) se nt en ce re du ct io n. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v . Glo ve r, 68 6 F.3 d 1 20 3, 1 20 7- 08 (11 thCir . 20 12 ). Here, the di st ric t co urt d idno t err in de nyin g B erry’ s § 35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n. Berry was c on vi ct edan d s en te nc edba ckin20 02 . Berry’ s o ffen se lev el of 3 7 a nd in it ia l g ui de li ne s rang e o f 36 0 m on th s t o l ife im pr is on m en t wer e n otba se d o n § 2 D1.1 ’s dru g qua nt it y

tab le s, b uton Berry ’s st atus as acare er o ffen de r, pu rs ua nt to U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1(b ). Mo re i m po rta nt ly, be cau se Berry

ha d t wo p rio r fel on y drug co nv ic ti on s, Be rry

was s ub ject t o ast atut ory

m an da to ry

min im um li fe se nt en ce u nd er 2 1 U.S.C. § 84 1( b) (1 )(A) (2 00 9) , andth us hi s g ui de li ne s s en te nc e 3 Case: 12-11150 Date Filed: 11/14/2012 Page: 3 of 7be cam e li fe i m pr is on m en t. Am en dm en t 7 50 ha d n o e ffec t o n B erry’ s i ni ti al

2 gu id el in es ran ge of 3 60 m on th s t o l ife im pr is on m en t o r Berry ’s gu id el in es se nt en ce o f li fe i m

pr is on m en t, an d t he di st ric t co urt d idno t h av e th e au th or it y to gr an t Be rry ’s § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n. Se e Glo ve r, 68 6 F .3dat 1 20 7- 08 . Berry arg ue s t ha t h e is eli gi bl e fo r a § 35 82 (c)( 2) reduc ti on ba se d o n t he Fai r Sen te nc in g Act(“ FSA”), wh ic h b ecame effect iv e o n Au gu st3, 2 01 0. Th e FSA lo weredth e st atut ory m an da to ry

m in im um pe na lt ie s fo r cra ckco cai ne of fen se s i n 2 1 U.S.C. § 84 1( b) . See Fai r Sen te nc in g Actof 2 01 0, Pub. L. No. 1 11 - 22 0 § 2(a ), 12 4 S ta t. 2 37 2 (2 01 0) . The p ro bl em for Berry is th e FSA i s n ota gu id el in es am en dm en t b y th e Sen te nc in g C omm is si on , bu t ra th er a s ta tu to ry ch an ge by Con gr es s, an d thu s i t d oe s n otserve as aba si s fo r a § 35 82 (c)( 2) se nt en ce re du ct io n i n B erry’ s ca se . Eve n a ss um in g a rg ue nd o tha t Be rry , as h e as se rts , cou ldbri ng hi s FS A cl ai m ina § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n, Be rry ’s FSA cl ai m st il l fa il s b ecau se he was co nv ic te d a ndsen te nc edin20 02 , andth e FSA d oe s n otap pl y retro act iv el y

to hi s 20 02 sen te nc es . The g en eral sav in gs claus e in 1 U.S.C. § 10 9 p ro vi de s t ha t “ [t]he Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b), the district court assigned B err y an off ense le vel of 37 2 based on a

statutory maxi mum life sentence . Be rry ’s offe nse leve l 37 and criminal hist ory cate g ory of VI yielded a guidelines rang e of 360 months to life imprisonment. Howeve r, by operation of U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(c)( 2), B err y ’s guidelines sentenc e wa s life bec ause that was also his statutory

mandatory

minimumsentenc e. 4 Case: 12-11150 Date Filed: 11/14/2012 Page: 4 of 7rep eal of a ny sta tu te sh al l n otha ve th e effe ctto rel eas e o r ex ti ng ui sh an y

pe na lty . . . in curredun de r su chst atut e, un le ss th e rep eal in g Actsh al l s o e xp res sl y pr ov id e, an d s uc h s ta tu te sh al l b e tr eat edas s ti ll rem ai ni ng infor ce fo r th e p ur po se of su st ai ni ng an y

pro pe r act io n o r pr os ecu ti on forth e en fo rcem en t o f su chpe na lt y

. . . . ” 1 U.S.C. § 10 9. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v . Gom es , 62 1 F .3d13 43 , 13 46 (11 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (d is cu ss in g 1 U.S.C. § 1 09 ), cert . den ie d, 1 31 S. Ct. 1 83 3 (2 01 1) . Not hi ng inth e FSA ex ti ng ui sh es th e st atut ory m an da to ry

m in im um sen te nc e o r pe na lty alr eady im po se d i n B erry’ s ca se be fo re the FSA’s en act m en t. We agre e with e ve ry

ot he r ci rcu itto ad dr es s t he is su e th atth ere i s “ no ev id en ce tha t Co ng res s i nt en de d [the FSA] to ap pl y to de fen da nt s wh o h adbe ensen te nc edpri or to th e Aug us t 3 , 20 10 da te of t he Act’s en act m en t.” Un it edSta te s v . Bap ti st , 64 6 F.3 d 1 22 5, 1 22 9 (9 th Cir . 20 11 ) (ci ti ng de ci si on s fr om ev ery Ci rcu it , in cl ud in g Gom es , exc ep t the D.C. Circ ui t an d t he Fed eral Cir cu it ), cert . den ie d, 1 32 S. Ct. 10 53 (20 12 ); Un it edSta te s v . Big es by, 685 F.3d10 60 , 10 66 (D.C. Cir . 20 12 ) (s ub se qu en tl y

ag reei ng th e FSA d oe s n otap pl y to sen te nc es im

po se d p rio r to Aug us t 3 , 20 10 ); Un it edSta te s v . Fie ld s, _

__F.3d__

_, No . 09 -3 13 7, 2 01 2 WL 54 57 68 2 , at*3 -4 (D.C. Cir . Nov . 9, 2 01 2) (sa m e). Berry cit es Dors ey

v. Un it edSta te s, i n wh ic h t he Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t th e FSA’s l owe r m an da to ry m in im um s ap pl y

to a de fen da ntwho co m

m it te d h is 5 Case: 12-11150 Date Filed: 11/14/2012 Page: 5 of 7of

fen se be fo re, b utwas s en te nc edaft er, the FSA’s en act m en t. Do rs ey , 56 7 U.S.

__ _, 1 32 S. Ct. 2 32 1, 2 32 6 (2 01 2) . But , Dors ey di d n otsu gg es t tha t the FSA’s ne w m an da to ry

m in im um s s ho ul d app ly to d efen dant s, l ik e Berry , who were se nt en cedlo ng be fo re the FSA’s effe ct iv e d at e. To th e co nt rary, the S up rem e 3 Co urt i n Do rs ey

no te d t ha t the di sp ari ti es be twee n t he se two ki nd s o f de fen da nt s

“ refl ect [ ] a li ne -drawi ng effo rt, [t ha t] will ex is t wh en ev er Co ng res s en act s a n ew la w cha ng in g s en te nc es ,” an d t ha t “ in fed eral sen te nc in g t he ord in ary pr act ic e is to ap pl y ne w pen al ti es to de fen da nt s n oty etsen te nc ed , whi le withh ol di ng th at ch an ge fro m

de fen da nt s al read y

sen te nc ed .” Id . at 2 33 5. Th e Supr em e Co urt i n Dor se y care fu ll y co nf in edit s ap pl ic at io n o f th e FSA t o p re-Ac t o ffen de rs who were s en te nc edaft er the Act’s ef fect iv e d at e. See Un it edSta te s v . Rob in so n, _

__ F.3 d _

__ , No. 1 2- 13 91 , 20 12 W L 39 90 74 1, at*2 (7t h C ir. Se pt . 7, 2 01 2) (“ The Supr em e Co urt i n Do rs ey he ldon ly tha t ‘Con gr es s i nt en de d t he Fai r Sen te nc in g After the FSA, a

§ 841(a) defe ndant with one or more prior convic tions for a fe lony drug 3 offe nse is subject to a mandatory minimumten-year

sentenc e and a

maxi mum of life imprisonment if his offense involved 28 grams or more of cr ack c ocaine . See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)( 1)(B )(iii). I f B err y wer e re sentenc ed under

the FSA, his statutory

maxi mum sentence would rema in life and, thus, his offe nse leve l under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b) would re main 37. Even if Be rry ’s new statutory

mandatory

minimumwer e ten year s under the F SA, his sentencing guidelines rang e under

U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1 would be 360 months to li fe. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(c). Fur ther, a fter the FSA, a § 841( a) de fenda nt stil l fac es a ma

ndatory minimumlife sentenc e if he has two prior f elony drugconvictions and his cur rent off ense involved 280 grams or more of

cra ck coc aine. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)( A)(iii). B err y was c onvicted of distributing 50 grams or more of cr ack c ocaine , and the se ntencingcourt found that his offense involved 161.7 grams of c rac k coca ine, less than the 280- gram amount now neede d for a mandatory minimumlife sentenc e under the FSA. 6 Case: 12-11150 Date Filed: 11/14/2012 Page: 6 of 7Act’s n ew, lo wer m an da to ry m in im um s t o app ly to the po st -Actsen te nc in g o f pr eAct o ffen de rs .’ ” (quo ti ng Dors ey , 13 2 S . Ct. at23 35 )). Fo r al l the se reas on s, the di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly den ie d B erry’ s § 35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n fo r a s en te nc e reduc ti on . AFFIRMED.

7 Case: 12-11150 Date Filed: 11/14/2012 Page: 7 of 7