[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 10 61 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 7- cr-2 06 34 -J AL-4 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ED REED, a.k .a. Darren McC orm ic k, a.k .a. “ LA”, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 5, 2 01 2) Befo re TJ OFLAT, PRYOR an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Ed Re ed , pro ceed in g pr o s e , app eal s the di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n Case: 12-10610 Date Filed: 12/05/2012 Page: 1 of 8fo r a s en te nc e reduc ti on , purs ua ntto 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ). On ap pe al , Reed

arg ue s tha t the di stric t co urt i m pr op erl y ass um edth athi s m ot io n was ba se d o n t he crac k c oc ai ne am en dm en ts , as o pp os edto Am en dm en ts 50 6 a nd56 7. Fu rth er, h e 1 reque st s tha t h is ap pe al be co ns ol id at edwith Uni te d Sta tes v. Gr een , No. 1 2- 10 24 7, an d h e ad op ts th e ap pe ll an t’s ar gu m en ts inth atcas e. Fo r th e rea so ns set fo rth be lo w, we affi rm

th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f Ree d’s § 35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n.

I. In20 08 , Reedpl edgu il ty to co ns pi racy to p os se ss with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te a de te ct ab le am ou ntof c oc ai ne , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 46 . Accor di ng to th e pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt ( “ PSI” ), Reedqu al ifi edas acare er o ffen de r un de r U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1(a ), an d a s s uc h, h is ba se off en se lev el was 3 2. Aft er a thr eele ve l re du ct io n fo r acc ep tanc e o f res po ns ib il it y un de r U.S.S.G. § 3 E1.1 (a) a nd(b) , hi s t ot al off

en se lev el was 2 9. Ba se d o n thi s o ffen se lev el an d acri min al hi st ory cat eg ory of I V, Reed ’s gu id el in e ran ge was 1 51 to 18 8 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Ult im at el y , th e co urt i m

po se d a15 1- m on th sen te nc e. InNov em

be r 20 11 , Reedfil edth e in st an t pr o s e§ 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n b as ed on Am en dm en ts 50 6 a nd56 7, an d Uni te d Sta tes v. La Bon te , 52 0 U.S. 7 51 , 11 7

Amendments 706 and 750 to the Sente ncingGuidelines re vised the cr ack c ocaine 1 quantity tables listed in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). SeeU.S.S.G. App. C, amends. 706 and 750. 2 Case: 12-10610 Date Filed: 12/05/2012 Page: 2 of 8S.Ct . 16 73 , 13 7 L.Ed .2d10 01 (19 97 ). In h is m ot io n, Re edarg ue d t ha t the di st ric t

co urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f th e car eer o ffen de r gu id el in e, § 4 B1 .1, was un la wfu ll y ba se d on hi s p rio r co nv ic ti on , as t he go ve rn m en t fa il edto fil e a n ot ic e, pu rs ua ntto 21 U.S.C. § 8 51 (a)( 1) , cha rg in g h im as a“ reci di vi stoff

en de r.” Mo reo ve r, he all eg ed th atth e co urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f th e car eer o ffen de r en ha nc em en t v io la te d t he se pa rat io n o f po wers . Reedfurth er as se rte d t ha t the La Bon te de ci si on sh ou ldbe tre at edas acla rif

y in g a m en dm en t t o t he Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es be cau se , am on g ot he r rea so ns , Am en dm en t 5 67 was b as edon La Bon te . He arg ue d t ha t juri sp ru de nc e es tabl is he s tha t the go ve rn m en t i s re qu ire d t o p ro vi de § 8 51 no ti ce be fo re the care er o ffen de r gu id el in e en ha nc em en t i s i m po se d. He co nc lu de d t ha t, in li gh t o f La Bon te , th e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d app ly an o ffen se lev el of 1 8 anda gu id el in e ran ge of 2 7 t o 3 3 m on th s. The di stric t co urt d en ie d R eed ’s § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n, i nd ic at in g t ha t h e was in el ig ib le fora se nt en ce re du ct io n b as edon hi s ca reeroff en de r st atus II. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a § 35 82 (c)( 2) sen te nc e reduc ti on for anab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. Da vis , 58 7 F .3d13 00 , 13 03 (11 thCir . 20 09 ). W e rev ie w de no vo th e d is tri ctco urt’s l eg al co nc lu si on s ab ou t the sco pe of it s au th or it y

un de r th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es an d re vi ew it s fa ct fin di ng s fo r cl ear 3 Case: 12-10610 Date Filed: 12/05/2012 Page: 3 of 8erro r. Id. W e m ay affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on on an y gro un d s up po rte d b y th e rec or d. Uni te d Sta tes v. C hi tw oo d , 67 6 F .3d97 1, 9 75 (11 th Cir . 20 12 ), cer t. de ni ed , (U.S. Oct. 1 , 20 12 ) (No . 12 -5 07 4) . Furt he r, we li be ral ly con stru e pl ead in gs fil edby pr o s e li ti ga nt s. Ta nn en ba um v. Un it ed Stat es , 14 8 F .3d12 62 , 12 63 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). A cou rt m ay

on ly m od ify a term

of i m pr is on m en t i n l im it edcir cu m st an ces , in cl ud in g wh ere ade fen da nt“ ha s b een sen te nc edto a te rm of i m pr is on m en t b as ed on 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 .” 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ). Furth er, § 35 82 (c)( 2) do es no t g ran t the di st ric t co urt juris di ct io n t o re co ns id er al l o rig in al sen te nc in g d et erm in at io ns . Uni te d Sta tes v. Br av o , 20 3 F .3d77 8, 7 81 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). In f act , “ al l or ig in al se nt en ci ng de te rm in at io ns rem ai n u nc ha ng edwith t he so le ex cep ti on of t he gu id el in e ran ge th atha s b een am en de d s in ce the ori gi na l s en te nc in g.” Id
. Mo reo ve r, th e d is tri ctco urt m ay no t m od ify an i m

po se d t erm

of i m pr is on m en t up on a § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n u nl es s the de fen da nt ’s sen te nc in g ra ng e was subs eque nt ly lower edby an am en dm en t t o t he Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es . Se e id
. at 78 0; U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .10 (a)( 2) (B). Oth er s en te nc in g i ss ue s s ho ul d b e rai se d i n a28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5 m ot io n. Se e Bra vo , 20 3 F .3dat 7 82 . Am en dm en t 5 06 , effec ti ve Nov em be r 1, 1 99 4, ch an ge d t he de fin it io n o f 4 Case: 12-10610 Date Filed: 12/05/2012 Page: 4 of 8“ Offen se Sta tu to ry Max im um ” in U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1’s co m m en ta ry to m ean on ly th e b as ic st atut ory

m ax im um an d e xc lu de d a ny sen te nc in g e nh an cem en ts ba se d o n th e d efen da nt ’s pri orcri m in al reco rd . Se e U.S.S.G. App . C, am en d. 5 06 . In La Bon te , ho wev er, the Supr em e Co urt co nc lu de d t ha t Am en dm en t 5 06 vi ol at ed th e p la in lan gu ag e o f 28 U.S.C. § 9 44 (h ), whi chrequi res th e Gui de li ne s t o s pe ci fy a se nt en ce “ ator n ear the m ax im um term au th or iz ed ” fo r de fen da nt s wh o h ad cert ai n p rio r fel on y

co nv ic ti on s. La Bon te , 52 0 U.S. at75 7– 62 , 11 7 S .Ct. at 16 77 –7 9. Th e te rm

“ m ax im um term au th or iz ed ” in § 9 44 (h ) in cl ud es an y rel ev an t st atut ory sen te nc in g e nh an cem en ts . Se e id
. at75 3, 1 17 S.Ct . at 1 67 5. In res po ns e, th e Sen te nc in g C omm is si on ad op te d Am en dm en t 5 67 , effec ti ve Nov em be r 1, 19 97 , whi cham en de d t he co m m en ta ry to § 4 B 1 .1 t o s pe ci fy

th at“ Offen se St atut ory Max im um ” in cl ud edsen te nc in g e nh an cem en ts ba se d o n t he de fen da nt ’s pr io r cri m in al reco rd . Se e U.S.S.G. App . C, am en d. 5 67 . As an in it ia l m at te r, Reedha s ab an do ne d the arg um en ts th athe rai se d i n h is § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n b y

fai li ng to rai se th em

inhi s ap pe al bri ef, an d i ns te ad , at te m pt in g t o a do ptanap pe ll an t’s b rie f in a se pa rat e cas e. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. W oo ds , 68 4 F .3d10 45 , 10 64 n.2 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 2) ; Uni te d Sta tes v. Gu pt a , 46 3 F.3 d 1 18 2, 1 19 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) (ex pl ai ni ng th atwe “ m ay de cl in e to ad dr es s an arg um en t wh ere apa rty fail s t o p ro vi de arg um en ts on th e m eri ts of a n i ss ue init s 5 Case: 12-10610 Date Filed: 12/05/2012 Page: 5 of 8in it ia l o r rep ly brie f”). We perm itanap pe ll an t t o a do ptby referen ce an y pa rt o f an ot he r pa rty’ s b rie f by inc lu di ng a st at em en t d es cri bi ng inde ta il whi chbri efs an d whi chpo rti on s o f th os e b rie fs are ad op te d. 1 1t h C ir. R . 28 -1 (f). The ap pe ll an t i n Gre en , ho wev er, i s n ota pa rty in t he in st an t ap pe al , andm or eo ve r, Reeddo es no t de sc rib e in de ta il whi chof Gre en ’s arg um en ts he in te nd s t o a do pt . Reg ard le ss , as di sc us se d b el ow, ev enco ns tru in g R eed ’s app eal bri ef l ib eral ly to p res erv e th e arg um en ts th athe m ad e b efo re the di st ric t co urt, se e Ta nn en ba um , 14 8 F .3dat 12 63 , he i s n oten ti tl edto sen te nc e reduc ti on . Furthe r, Reed ’s reque stto ha ve hi s ap pe al co ns ol id at edwith Gre en is m oo t b ecau se th e ap pe al inth atcas e is no lo ng er p en di ng be fo re thi s C ou rt. The di stric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g R eed ’s § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n. Onap pe al , Reedsu gg es ts th atth e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er de nyin g h is § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n was co nf us in g b ecau se th e d is tri ctco urt as su m ed th athi s m ot io n was fil edpu rs ua ntto th e cra ckco cai ne am en dm en ts in st eadof Am en dm en ts 50 6 a nd56 7. Th e d is tri ctco urt, h owe ve r, di d n otsp eci fy a gu id el in es am en dm en t i n d en y in g R eed ’s § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n. In st ead , th e co urt m erel y st at edth atReedwas n oten ti tl edto rel ie f un de r § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) be cau se he was sen te nc edas acare er o ffen de r. Reg ard le ss , eve n i f th e d is tri ctco urt im pr op erl y co ns tru edReed ’s m ot io n a s s eek in g asen te nc e reduc ti on ba se d o n t he 6 Case: 12-10610 Date Filed: 12/05/2012 Page: 6 of 8crac k c oc ai ne am en dm en ts in st eadof Am en dm en ts 50 6 a nd56 7, we m ay affi rm on an y ba si s s up po rte d b y

th e rec or d, se e Ch itwo od , 67 6 F .3dat 9 75 , andhe re, the reco rdm ak es cle ar tha t Re edis no t en ti tl edto a se nt en ce re du ct io n. Am en dm en t 5 06 , effec ti ve Nov em be r 1, 1 99 4, an d Am en dm en t 5 67 , effe ct iv e Nov em

be r 1, 1 99 7, wer e b ot h i ss ue d wel l b efo re Re eden te redhi s g ui lt y pl ea i n 2 00 8, an d thu s, h is ap pl ic ab le sen te nc in g ra ng e was no t s ub se qu en tl y lo weredby tho se am en dm en ts . U.S.S.G. App . C, am en ds . 50 6 and56 7; Bra vo , 20 3 F .3dat 7 80 -8 1. Ad di ti on al ly, § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) au th or iz es th e d is tri ctco urt t o reduc e a d efen da nt ’s sen te nc e p ur su an t t o re tro act iv el y ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e am en dm en ts , no t Supr em e Co urt d eci si on s, s uc h a s La Bon te . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Mor en o , 42 1 F .3d12 17 , 12 20 (20 05 ) (co nc lu di ng th at Boo ker was aSupr em e 2 Co urt d eci si on , no t a r etro act iv el y ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e am en dm en t b y th e Sen te nc in g C omm is si on , andth eref or e, Boo ker

was i napp li cab le to § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io ns ); U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 0( a)(2 )(B) . Fin al ly, to th e ex te ntth atReedsee ks to ch al le ng e th e d is tri ctco urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f § 4 B1 .1 dur in g s en te nc in g, s uc h a ch al le ng e is ou ts id e th e li m it edsco pe of § 35 82 (c)( 2) , andhe m us t ra is e itina co ll at eral att ackun de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5. Se e Bra vo , 20 3 F .3dat 7 80 -8 2.

United States v. Book

er , 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. C t. 738, 160 L . Ed. 2d 621 (2005). 2 7 Case: 12-10610 Date Filed: 12/05/2012 Page: 7 of 8Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f Ree d’s § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n. AFFIRMED.

8 Case: 12-10610 Date Filed: 12/05/2012 Page: 8 of 8