[DO N OT PUBLISH]

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 2- 11 95 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd er

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :0 8- cr-0 00 62 -LC-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, ve rs us JASON BAKER, Defen da nt- App el lant .

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

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Sep te m be r 28 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:

Case: 12-11957 Date Filed: 09/28/2012 Page: 1 of 5Ja so n B ak er ap pe al s the di stric t co urt’s g ran t o f hi s m ot io n t o re du ce h is

se nt en ce u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) . He con te nd s tha t the di stric t co urt m is cal cu la te d h is am en de d g ui de li ne s ra ng e. I. Bak er p le ad edgu il ty to co ns pi racy to d is tri bu te an d p os se ss with i nt en t t o di strib ut e 5 00 or m or e g ram s o f co cai ne an d 5 or m or e g ram s o f cra ckco cai ne in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 )(B) (ii )– (ii i), 8 46 . Bak er h adat l eas t two pr io r fel on y

dru g c on vi ct io ns , so he was s ub ject t o a10 -y ear m an da to ry min im um an d am ax im

um sen te nc e o f li fe. See 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (b )(1 )(B) . The p res en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt h el d h im res po ns ib le for

1,7 85 gram s o f cra ckco cai ne , whi ch m ad e h is ba se off

en se lev el 36 . See Un it edSta te s Se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s § 2D1 .1(c )(2 ) (No v. 2 00 7) . The PSRad de d 2 lev el s u nd er § 2D1 .1(b )(1 ) be cau se Bak er p os se ss eda fi rearm an d s ub tra ct ed3 l ev el s fo r acc ep tanc e o f res po ns ib il ity un de r § 3 E1.1 . Bak er’s t ot al off en se lev el was 3 5. Th e PSR als o c on cl ud edth at Bak er was a care er o ffen de r un de r § 4 B1 .1(a ), bu t b ecau se Bak er’s o th erwi se ap pl ic ab le to ta l o ffen se lev el of 3 5 was hi gh er tha n the to ta l o ffen se lev el of 3 4 th athe was s ub

ject t o a s a c aree r of

fen de r, Bak er’s car eer o ffen de r st atus di d n ot ch an ge hi s o th erwi se -ap pl ic ab le to ta l o ffen se lev el . See U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1(b ) (“ [I]f th e o ffen se lev el fora care er o ffen de r . . . is g reat er tha n the off en se lev el 2 Case: 12-11957 Date Filed: 09/28/2012 Page: 2 of 5othe rwis e ap pl ic ab le , th e [career off en de r] offen se lev el . . . sh al l ap pl y .”). Bak er’s cri m in al hi st ory

cat eg ory was VI, an d h is gu id el in es ran ge was 2 92 to 36 5 m on th s i n p ris on . The d is tri ctco urt ad op te d the PSR an d s en te nc edBak er to 32 8 m on th s i n p ris on , whi chwas ro ug hl y th e m id dl e o f hi s g ui de li ne s ra ng e. Late r, be cau se Bak er h adpro vi de d the go ve rnm en t wi th subs tant ia l as si st an ce, the co urt re du cedBak er’s s en te nc e b y 50 % to 16 4 m on th s und er Fe de ral Ru le of Cri m in al Pro cedur e 3 5( b) . Bak er fi le d apro se 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) , con te nd in g tha t Am en dm en t 7 50 to th e g ui de li ne s h adreduc edhi s gu id el in es ran ge . The d is tri ctco urt g ran te d B ak er’s m ot io n. Th e co urt reca lc ul at edBak er’s g ui de li ne s ra ng e und er the care er o ffen de r gu id el in e, whi ch le d t o agu id el in es ran ge of 2 62 to 32 7 m on th s. Itth enreduc edhi s s en te nc e to 14 7 m on th s, wh ic h re pr es en te d arou gh ly 50% re du ct io n fr om th e m id dl e o f hi s am en de d g ui de li ne s ra ng e. See U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 0( b) (2 )(B) (Nov . 20 11 ) (“ If the te rm of i m pr is on m en t i m

po se d was les s tha n the term of i m pr is on m en t p ro vi de d by the gu id el in e ran ge ap pl ic ab le to th e d efen da ntat the ti m e o f se nt en ci ng pu rs uantto a go ve rn m en t m ot io n t o re fle ctth e d efen da nt ’s subs tant ia l as si st an ce to au th or it ie s, a re du ct io n c om parab ly less th anth e am en de d g ui de li ne ran ge . . . m ay be ap pr op ria te .”). 3

Case: 12-11957 Date Filed: 09/28/2012 Page: 3 of 5II.

Bak er co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt m is cal cu late d h is am en de d g ui de li ne s ran ge , arg ui ng th atth e co urt s ho ul d n othave us edth e car eer o ffen de r gu id el in e. In st ead , he arg ue s, af

te r Am en dm en t 7 50 , hi s t ot al off en se lev el is 33 an d h is am en de d g ui de li ne s ra ng e is 23 5 t o 2 93 m on th s. We revi ew de no vo th e d is tri ct co urt’s ca lc ul at io n o f a d efen dant ’s gu id el in es ran ge . Uni te d S ta te s v . DeVegt er, 43 9 F .3d12 99 , 13 03 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). The di stric t co urt d idno t m is cal cu la te Bak er’s am en de d g ui de li ne s ra ng e. Whe n c al cu la ti ng a de fen dant ’s am en de d g ui de li ne s rang e und er 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) inli gh t o f a retro act iv e am en dm en t t o the gu id el in es , a di stric t co urt m us t “ de te rmin e th e am en de d g ui de li ne ran ge th atwou ldha ve be enap pl ic ab le to th e d efen dantif the [retro act iv e] am en dm en t[] to th e g ui de li ne s . . . hadbe enin effe ctat the ti m e th e d efen dantwas s en te nc ed .” U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .1(b )(1 ). Am en dm en t 7 50 lo weredBak er’s b as e o ffen se lev el to 34 , see U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1(c )(3 ), an d h e is st il l s ub ject t o a2-l ev el in crea se un de r § 2 D1.1 (b )(1 ) an d en ti tl edto a 3- le ve l d ecre as e und er § 3E1 .1. So , if Ba ke r were n ota care er of fen de r, hi s t ot al off

en se lev el aft er Am en dm en t 7 50 wou ldbe 33 . Bak er i s a care er o ffen de r, ho wev er, an d b ecau se he is subjec t t o am ax im um li fe s en te nc e, hi s ca reeroff

en de r ba se off

en se lev el is 37 . See i d. § 4B 1.1 (b )(A). Aft er a 3 -le ve l

4 Case: 12-11957 Date Filed: 09/28/2012 Page: 4 of 5de crea se foracce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il ity , hi s t ot al care er o ffen de r of fen se lev el is 34 . Becau se th atto ta l o ffen se lev el is gre at er tha n the to ta l o ffen se lev el th at wou ldap pl y

if h e were n ota care er o ffen de r, th e car eer o ffen de r to ta l o ffen se lev el ap pl ie s. See U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1(b ). So, i f Am en dm en t 7 50 ha d b eenineffe ctat the ti m e Bak er was ori gi na ll y sen te nc ed , Bak er’s t ot al off en se lev el wou ldha ve be en 34 un de r th e car eer o ffen de r gu id el in e. W ith an a m en de d t ot al off en se lev el of 3 4 an d acri m in al hi st ory

cat eg ory of VI, B ak er’s am en de d g ui de li ne s rang e is 26 2 t o 32 7 m on th s i n p ris on , whi chis th e am en de d g ui de li ne s ra ng e cal cu la te d b y th e di stric t co urt. AFFIRMED.

5 Case: 12-11957 Date Filed: 09/28/2012 Page: 5 of 5