[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 10 69 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 5 :0 6- cr-0 00 17 -LSC-P W G-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us FRANKLIN LAMAR KELLOGG , 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 North ern Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 6, 2 01 2) Befo re HULL, MARTIN an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Fran kl in Lam ar Kel lo gg ap pe al s h is 96 0- m on th sen te nc e, im po se d b y th e Case: 12-10696 Date Filed: 09/06/2012 Page: 1 of 8di st ric t co urt atres en te nc in g a fte r th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d h is 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5

m ot io n t o v acat e. Afte r a tho ro ug h re vi ew of th e rec or d, we af

firm . I. Fo ll owi ng a jury tria l i n 2 00 7, Kel lo gg was c on vi ct edof a rm edbank ro bb ery, in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 2 11 3 (C ou nt1); us in g afir earm du rin g a ndin rel at io n t o acri m e o f vi ol en ce, i n v io la ti on 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (c)( 1) (A)(i ii ) (Co un t 2) ; an d p os se ss io n o f a fi rearm by a con vi ct edfel on , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g ) (Co un t 3 ). Co un t 1 carr ie d ast atut ory m ax im um of 2 5 years’ (3 00 m on th s) im

pr is on m en t. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 2 11 3( d) . Cou nt2 carri eda m an da to ry m in im um sen te nc e o f 25 y ears ’ im pr is on m en t, wh ic h wo ul d ru n c on se cu ti ve ly to an y ot he r se nt en ce i m

po se d. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (c)( 1) (C)( i), (c )(1 )(D)(i i). Co un t 3 c arri eda m an da to ry

m in im um of 1 5 years’ im

pr is on m en t an d ast atut ory m ax im um of l ife im pr is on m en t. Se e 18 U.S.C.§ 9 24 (e)( 1) . The d is tri ctco urt se nt en cedKell og g t o t he m ax im um 30 0 m on th s o n C ou nt1 an d t he hi gh en d o f th e g ui de li ne ran ge of 6 60 m on th s o n C ou nt3 t o ru n c on cu rren tl y , andth e m an da to ry -m in im

um 30 0 m on th s o n C ou nt2 t o ru n c on se cu ti ve to th e o th er se nt en ces , fora to ta l s en te nc e o f 96 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. 1 Kellog gqualified a s a ca ree r off ender , which, whe n added to the statutory maxi mum 1 sentenc es of Counts 1 and 3, g ener ated a guideline ra

ng e of 660 months’ to life imprisonment under U .S.S.G. § 4B1.1(c) (2) & comment. (n.3(c )(ii)) ( 2007). 2 Case: 12-10696 Date Filed: 09/06/2012 Page: 2 of 8Kell og g’s co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es were af firm edondi rectap pe al . Uni te d St at es v. Kel lo gg , No. 0 7- 15 80 7, 2 00 9 WL 32 30 63 (11 th Cir . Feb . 10 , 20 09 ). Kell og g the n fi le d am ot io n t o v acat e h is co nv ic ti on s. Re le va ntto th is ap pe al , he arg ue d t ha t h is co nv ic ti onon Co un t 3 vi ol at eddo ub le jeop ardy be cau se he ha d be enco nv ic te d i n Ten ne ss ee o f th e sa m e co nduc t. The di st ric t co urt g ran te d t he m ot io n i n p art , vac at edKell og g’s co nv ic ti on forCo un t 3 , andord ered res en te nc in g wi th ou t thi s co un t. At re se nt en ci ng , th e d is tri ctco urt s en te nc edKell og g t o 3 00 m on th s fo r Co un t 1 an d i nc reas edhi s s en te nc e o n C ou nt2 fr om 30 0 m on th s t o aco ns ecu ti ve 66 0 m on th s. In im

po si ng th e se nt en ce, the di st ric t co urt s ta te d, “ I ha d apl an , ov eral l p la n o f ho w m

uc h t im e th e d efen dantwou ldserve ba se d upo n h is ov eral l cri m in al co nduc t.” Th e co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t the len gt hy sen te nc e was ne ces sa ry gi ve n t he na tu re an d c irc um st an ces of t he off en se s an d t he hi st ory

an d ch arac te ris ti cs of t he de fen da nt , as wel l as th e n eedto de te r cri m in al be ha vi oran d pr ot ectth e p ub li c. Kell og g n ow ap pe al s, ar gu in g t ha t the di st ric t co urt d idno t ha ve juri sd ic ti on to reco ns tru ctth e o rig in al to ta l s en te nc e an d re se nt en ce h im on co nv ic ti on s t ha t h e d idno t ch al le ng e in hi s § 22 55 m ot io n wi th ou t an ord er b y th is

3 Case: 12-10696 Date Filed: 09/06/2012 Page: 3 of 8Co urt re ve rs in g andrem an di ng forsu ch a res en te nc in g. 2

Whe th er the di st ric t co urt h adjuri sd ic ti on to res en te nc e Kel lo gg in vo lv es a qu es ti on of l aw th atwe rev ie w de no vo . Uni te d Sta tes v. Wat ki ns , 14 7 F .3d12 94 , 12 96 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). In Uni te d Sta tes v. Ro se n , a pr e-Se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s ca se , we hel d t ha t whe n asen te nc e o n m

ul ti pl e co un ts was d is rupt edbe cau se itin co rp or at edan il le ga l s en te nc e, itwas app ro pr ia te forth e en ti re ca se to be rem an de d fo r res en te nc in g. 7 64 F.3d76 3, 7 67 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ). Bu t we l im it edou r ho ld in g t o si tu at io ns wher e a d efen da ntch al le ng edall of h is co nv ic ti on s o n d ire ctap pe al . Id. at76 6. Afte r th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es wentin to effe ct , we dec id ed Uni te d Sta tes v. Mix on , 11 5 F .3d90 0, 9 03 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ), whi ch ad dr es se d asu cces sf ul co ll at eral ch al le ng e to a § 9 24 (c) c on vi ct io n. Th ere, we h el d t ha t the di st ric t co urt m ay res en te nc e th e d efen da nton rel at edbu t u nc ha ll en ge d d ru g c ou ntco nv ic ti on s aft er v acat in g o ne of s ev eral co nv ic ti on s. Id . at 9 02 . W e n ot edth at , at t he ti m e o f se nt en ci ng , th e d is tri ctco urt co ul d n otim po se bo th th e m an da to ry

sen te nc e fo r th e § 9 24 (c) v io la ti on an d a ls o app ly a two- le ve l en ha nc em en t u nd er U.S.S.G. We note that Kellog ghas aba ndoned any

challeng e to the proc edura l or substantive 2 rea sonablene ss of his sentence by failingto raise the issue in his brief . United States v. J

ernigan , 341 F.3d 1273, 1283 n.8 ( 11th Cir. 2003). 4

Case: 12-10696 Date Filed: 09/06/2012 Page: 4 of 8§ 2 D1.1 (b )(1 ) fo r po ss es si on of f ire arm s dur in g t he off

en se . Mix on , 11 5 F .3dat 90 2. Th e rel at io ns hi p b etween§ 9 24 (c) an d § 2D1 .1(b )(1 ) was an“ ei th er/ or rel at io ns hi p” at s en te nc in g. Id . (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . W e co nc lu de d t ha t the Gui de li ne s co nt em

pl at edth e in te rd ep en de nc e o f a § 92 4( c) co nv ic ti on an d un de rlyin g d ru g o ffen se s, an d a lt ho ug h t he § 9 24 (c) c on vi ct io n h adbe enva cat ed , th is in te rd ep en de nc e o f th e m ul ti pl e co un ts all owe d t he di st ric t co urt t o a dju stth e de fen da nt ’s sen te nc es on th e u nc ha ll en ge d c ou nt s. Id . at 9 03 . In Uni te d Sta tes v. Ol iv er , 14 8 F .3d12 74 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ), th e ap pe ll an ts rai se d the same argu m en ts as t he de fen dantin Mix on . Id . at 1 27 5. Inco nc lu di ng th atth ei r cl ai m s wer e fo recl os ed , we no te d t ha t o urde ci si on in Ros en di d n otalt er th e res ul t b ecau se Ros en was a pr e-Gu id el in es cas e, an d t he lan gu ag e ci te d b y th e de fen da nt s was di cta . Id. W e rea so ne d t ha t, b ecau se Ros en was apre -Gu id el in es cas e, th e co urt co ul d n otha ve co ns id eredth e u ni qu e rel at io ns hi p b etween§ 9 24 (c) an d § 2D1 .1(b )(1 ). Id. Si m il arl y , in Uni te d Sta tes v. Wat ki ns , 14 7 F .3d12 94 (11 thCir . 19 98 ), we face d the same qu es ti on as i n Mix on an d Oli ver , bu t wi th a twi st . Se e id . at 1 29 6. The de fen da ntin W

atki ns was an a rm edcare er cr im in al , whi chm ean t tha t U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (b )(1 ) di d n otap pl y to en ha nc e h is off

en se lev el . Id

. Thu s, we ha d t o d eci de whet he r th e u na va il ab il it y of t he § 2 D1.1 (b )(1 ) en ha nc em en t atth e 5 Case: 12-10696 Date Filed: 09/06/2012 Page: 5 of 8de fen da nt ’s ori gi na l s en te nc in g was anin te gr al co m po ne ntof the di st ric t co urt’s juri sd ic ti on to res en te nc e o n u nc ha ll en ge d c ou nt s fo ll owi ng a § 2 25 5 p ro ceed in g th atva cat eda § 9 24 (c) c on vi ct io n. Id. at 1 29 6- 97 . The d efen da ntarg ue d t ha t the di st ric t co urt d idno t h av e juri sd ic ti on to res en te nc e h im on th e two co un ts he di d no t co ll at eral ly atta ck . Id. at 1 29 7. We aga in di st in gu is he d Ros en as a pr e-Gu id el in es cas e an d we n ot edth at“ th e d is tri ctco urt v ie wedth e d efen da nt ’s se nt en ce as a ‘pack ag e’ andto okin to acco un t ‘th e n atur e o f th e cri m e, cert ai n ch arac te ris ti cs of t he cri m in al , andth e in te rd ep en de nc e o f th e in di vi du al co un ts .’ ” Id. (qu ot in g Uni te d Sta tes v. Bi nf or d , 10 8 F .3d72 3, 7 28 (7t h C ir. 1 99 7) ). W e h el d th atth e “ in te rd ep en de nc e o f th e dru g a ndfir earm s o ffen se s an d t he sen te nc in g pa ck ag e d oc tri ne pro vi de d the di st ric t co urt wi th th e juri sd ic ti on to res en te nc e [the de fen da nt ] fo ll owi ng hi s s uc ces sf ul co ll at eral att ackon th e § 92 4( c) o ffen se .” Id. at12 97 . Thu s, the av ai labi li ty of th e U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (b )(1 ) en ha nc em en t was no t ne ces sa ry to th e co urt’s jur is di ct io n t o re se nt en ce o n u nc ha ll en ge d c ou nt s. Id. Po st - Boo ker , we ha ve co nt in ue d wi th a “ ho li st ic ap pr oa ch ” to res en te nc in g,

3

“ tre at in g acri m in al sen te nc e as a pa ck ag e o f sanc ti on s t ha t maybe ful ly revi si te d up on res en te nc in g.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ma rt in ez , 60 6 F .3d13 03 , 13 04 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) (em ph as is in ori gi na l). “ Und er thi s United States v. Book

er , 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.C t. 738, 160 L .Ed.2d 621 (2005). 3 6 Case: 12-10696 Date Filed: 09/06/2012 Page: 6 of 8ho li st ic ap pr oa ch , when a cri m in al sen te nc e is va cat ed , itbe co m es vo idin it s

en ti rety ; the sen te nc e—i nc lu di ng an y en ha nc em en ts —h as be enwho ll y nu ll ifi ed an d t he sl at e wip edcle an .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Sti ns on , 97 F.3d46 6, 4 69 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Thu s, “ th e d is tri ctco urt i s fr ee t o reco ns tru ctth e se nt en ce u ti li zi ng an y of t he sen te nc e co m

po ne nt s.” Id . Inad di ti on , th e Supr em e Co urt h as sai d t ha t ap pe ll at e co urts m ay co nt in ue to us e th is “ se nt en ci ng pa ck ag e” ap pr oa ch . Gre en la w v. Uni te d Sta tes , 55 4 U.S. 23 7, 2 53 (20 08 ). It n ot edth atsu ch “ se nt en ci ng pa ck ag e cas es ” typi cal ly inv ol ve m ul ti -co un t i nd ic tm en ts an d asu cces sf ul att ackby a defe nd an t o n s om e b utno t al l co un ts of c on vi ct io n. Id. The ap pe al s co urt, i n s uc h i ns tanc es , “ m ay va cat e th e en ti re s en te nc e o n a ll co un ts so th at , on rem an d, t he tri al co urt ca n re co nf ig ur e th e se nt en ci ng pl anto ass ur e th atitrem ai ns ad equa te to sat is fy th e se nt en ci ng fact or s in 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a).” Id. The Supr em e Co urt fu rth er re co gn iz edth e p os si bi li ty th at , up on rem an d, t ria l co urts m ay im po se sen te nc es on th e rem ai ni ng co un ts th at were l on ge r th anth e se nt en ces ori gi na ll y im po se d o n t ho se co un ts , bu t yield in g a n ag gr eg at e se nt en ce tha t was no lo ng er tha n t he ori gi na l ag gr eg at e se nt en ce. Id. Thu s, al th ou gh th e d efen da ntul ti m at el y m ay ga inno th in g fr om

hi s l im it edsu cces s on ap pe al , he a ls o l os es no th in g. Id. at 2 54 . InKell og g’s ca se , Cou nt s 1 an d 2 were i nt erd ep en de ntwith c ou nt3, an d t he 7 Case: 12-10696 Date Filed: 09/06/2012 Page: 7 of 8reco rdin di cat es th atth e d is tri ctco urt v ie wedth e in it ia l s en te nc e as a “pa ck ag e.”

Thu s, the di st ric t co urt h adjuri sd ic ti on to res en te nc e Kel lo gg on Co un ts 1 an d 2 , an d t he di st ric t co urt’s “ ov eral l p la n” to res en te nc e Kel lo gg to 96 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t was withi n i ts po wer. Mix on , 11 5 F .3dat 9 02 -0 3; W at ki ns , 14 7 F.3 d a t 1 29 7; se e a ls o Gr een la w , 55 4 U.S. at25 3; Mar ti ne z , 60 6 F .3dat 1 30 4. The factth atres en te nc in g re su lt edfro m a su cces sf

ul co ll at eral att ackrathe r th ana rem an d fr om

th is co urt i s n otrel ev an t. Se e , e.g . , Mix on , 11 5 F .3dat 9 01 , 90 3; se e al so Bin fo rd , 10 8 F .3dat 7 29 . Accor di ng ly, we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt ha d ju ris di ct io n t o re se nt en ce Kel lo gg on Co un ts 1 an d 2 , andwe affi rm th e se nt en ce i m

po se d. AFFIRMED.

8 Case: 12-10696 Date Filed: 09/06/2012 Page: 8 of 8