FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPT 24, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 06 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 9 :0 8- cr-8 01 03 -DTKH-2 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, vers us SEDRICK LAWSON, 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 24 , 20 10 ) Befo re BARKETT, HULL andFAY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Sedric k Laws on , pro ceed in g pr o s e , app eal s fr om th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er de nyin g h is pr o s e m ot io n t o re du ce h is sen te nc e, pu rs ua ntto 18 U.S.C.§ 3 58 2( c)(2 ) an d Am en dm en t 7 06 to th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es . On ap pe al ,

Lawso n a rg ue s t ha t the co urt erredin fin di ng th atitlac ke d aut ho rit y to granthi s m ot io n t o re du ce h is sen te nc e b ecau se he was s en te nc edas acare er o ffen de r, un de r U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1. Rel y in g o n t he U.S. Sup rem e Co urt’s d eci si onin Ki mbr ou gh v. Uni te d Sta tes , 55 2 U.S. 8 5, 1 28 S.Ct . 55 8, 1 69 L.Ed.2d48 1 (2 00 7) , Lawso n a rg ue s t ha t the sen te nc in g d is pa rit y be twee n c rackan d p owd er co cai ne of fen se s i s u nwa rran te d, an d t ha t i t re fle ct s ra ci al bi as ag ai ns t Afri can Am eri can s. Lawso n a ls o a ss ert s t ha t h is 26 2- m on th sen te nc e v io la te s t he Eig ht h Am en dm en t’s pr ot ect io n fr om

cru el an d u nu su al pu ni sh m en t, b ecau se itov er-r ep res en ts th e se rio us ne ss of h is cri m e. Inhi s re pl y

bri ef, Laws on co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredby se nt en ci ng hi m

as acare er o ffen de r athi s i ni ti al sen te nc in g, b ecau se hi s p rev io us co nv ic ti on foratt em

pt edpo ss es si on of c oc ai ne was n ota qu al ifyin g p red ic at e of fen se . Fo r th e rea so ns setforthbe lo w, we affi rm . I. InDecem be r 20 08 , a jury co nv ic te d Laws onof d is tri bu ti ng crac k c oc ai ne , in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) .

2Acco rd in g t o t he pre -s en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt ( “ PSI” ), Lawso n was

res po ns ib le for3.5 gra m s o f cra ckco cai ne . Lawso n’s cr im in al hi st ory sh owe d th athe ha d s us ta in edfou r pr ev io us dru g- tra ffi ck in g c on vi ct io ns , in cl ud in g a a 2 00 6 c on vi ct io n fo r atte m ptto po ss es s co cai ne . In ca lc ul at in g Laws on ’s gu id el in e ran ge , th e p ro ba ti on off ic er fo un d t ha t, p ur su an t t o t he dru g qua nt it y tabl e se t fo rth in U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (c), Laws on ’s bas e o ffen se lev el wou ldbe 20 , be cau se he was re sp on si bl e fo r 3.5 gra m s o f cra ckco cai ne . The o ffi cer a ls o fo un d, h owe ve r, th atLawso n’s p rev io us dru g- tra ffi ck in g c on vi ct io ns qu al ifi ed hi m as acare er o ffen de r un de r U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1. Acco rd in gl y , th e o ffi cer de te rm in edth at , bec au se Lawso n was a care er o ffen de r, an d t he st atut ory -m ax im

um pe na lt y forhi s o ffen se was 3 0 years’ im pr is on m en t, h is ba se of fen se lev el was 3 4. Ba se d o n ato ta l o ffen se lev el of 3 4, an d acri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory of VI, t he pro ba ti on off

ic er fo un d tha t Laws on ’s gu id el in e ran ge was 2 62 to 32 7 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. Alt ho ug h t he reco rddo es no t i nc lu de a tr an sc rip t o f Lawso n’s s en te nc in g he ari ng , th e p art ie s ag ree t ha t the co urt s en te nc edLawso n a s a c aree r of fen de r. The co urt s en te nc edLawso n t o aterm of 2 62 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. Lawso n fi le d t he pre se ntm ot io n t o re du ce h is sen te nc e, pu rs ua ntto 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) an d U.S.S.G. Am en dm en t 7 06 , whi ch retro act iv el y reduc ed 3th e o ffen se lev el s ap pl ic ab le to crac k- co cai ne off en se s b y two lev el s. In hi s m ot io n, Laws on ge ne ral ly argu edth at§ 3 58 2( c)(2 ) an d Am en dm en t 7 06 pro vi de d th e co urt wi th th e au th or it y to retro act iv el y

reduc e h is gu id el in e ran ge . Relyin g o n Ki mbr ou gh , Lawso n a ls o a rg ue d t ha t h is 26 2- m on th sen te nc e res ul te d fr om an un warra nt ed , andraci al ly dis cri m in at ory , di sp ari ty betweenth e se nt en ces im po se d fo r po wde r an d c rackco cai ne off en se s. Laws on furth er as se rte d t ha t, i n l ig htof th e d is pa rit y

be twee n h is 26 2- m on th sen te nc e an d the rel at iv el y sm al l am ou ntof crac k c oc ai ne th athe ha d p os se ss ed , hi s s en te nc e v io la te d t he Eig ht h Am en dm en t’s p ro hi bi ti on on cru el an d u nu su al pu ni sh m en t. The co urt en te redanord er d en y in g Laws on ’s m ot io n. Th e co urt fo un d t ha t Lawso n’s g ui de li ne ran ge ha d b een cal cu la te d b as edon hi s s ta tu s as a care er of fen de r un de r § 4 B1 .1, an d n otba se d o n t he dru g qua nt it y tab le setforth in § 2 D1.1 (c). Re lying on ou r de ci si on in Uni te d Sta tes v. Mo or e , 54 1 F .3d13 23 , 13 30 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ), cer t. d en ie d , 12 9 S .Ct. 1 60 1, an d c er t. d en ie d, McFa dden v. Uni te d Sta tes , 12 9 S .Ct. 9 65 (20 09 ), th e co urt d et erm in edth at , bec au se Lawso n was sen te nc edba se d o n h is st atus as acare er o ffen de r, a se nt en ce re du ct io n wo ul d no t b e co ns is te ntwith the Sen te nc in g C omm is si on ’s app li cab le po li cy st at em en ts , as setforth in U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .10 (a)( 2) (B). Acco rd in gl y , th e co urt co nc lu de d t ha t

4a se nt en ce re du ct io n was no t ap pr op ria te in Lawso n’s ca se , andde ni edhi s m ot io n

un de r § 3 58 2( c)(2 ).

II . Inth e co nt ex t o f a p ro ceed in g u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) , we rev ie w de no vo a d is tri ctco urt’s co nc lu si on s re ga rd in g t he sco pe of i ts au th or ity un de r th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es . Uni te d Sta tes v. Whi te , 30 5 F .3d12 64 , 12 67 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). Pu rs uantto § 3 58 2( c)(2 ), a d efen dantwho se “ se nt en ci ng ran ge . . . ha s subs eque nt ly been lo weredby the Sen te nc in g C omm is si on ” m ay m ov e th e d is tri ct co urt t o re du ce h is sen te nc e. 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ). Any reduc ti on , ho wev er, m us t b e “ co ns is te ntwith app li cab le po li cy st at em en ts is su edby the Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on .” Id
. A sen te nc e reduc ti on is no t co ns is te ntwith t he Co m m is si on ’s po li cy st at em en ts wher e anam en dm en t “ do es no t h av e th e eff ectof l owe rin g t he de fen da nt ’s app li cab le gu id el in e ran ge .” U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .10 (a)( 2) (B). Am en dm en t 7 06 , whi ch was m ad e ret ro act iv e b y th e Sen te nc in g C omm is si on , lo weredth e b as e o ffen se lev el s ap pl ic ab le to crac k- co cai ne off en se s, as setforthin th e dru g qua nt it y

tab le in § 2 D1.1 (c). Se e U.S.S.G., App . C, Am en d. 7 06 ; Moo re , 54 1 F .3dat 1 32 5. 5In Moo re , we hel d tha t, wh ere ade fen da nt ’s off en se lev el is cal cu la te d ba se d o n t he care er-o ffen de r pr ov is io n i n § 4B 1.1 , rathe r th anth e dru g qua nt it y tabl e in § 2 D1.1 (c), Am en dm en t 7 06 do es no t h av e th e eff ectof l owe rin g t he de fen da nt ’s app li cab le gu id el in e ran ge . 54 1 F .3dat 1 33 0. As a res ul t, s uc h a de fen da ntis no t el ig ib le fora se nt en ce re du ct io n u nd er § 35 82 (c)( 2) , andth e di st ric t co urt l ack s t he au th or it y to gra nta reduc ti on . Id
. In a dd it io n, wh ere a de fen da ntis no t o th erwi se eli gi bl e fo r a s en te nc e reduc ti on un de r § 3 58 2( c)(2 ), a U.S. Sup rem e Co urt d eci si on , st an di ng alo ne , do es no t p ro vi de th e co urt wi th th e au th or it y to reduc e th e d efen da nt ’s sen te nc e. Uni te d Sta tes v. Mo re no , 42 1 F .3d 12 17 , 12 20 -2 1 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 5) . A pro ceed in g u nd er § 35 82 (c)( 2) do es no t co nt em pl at e a de no vo res en te nc in g o f th e d efen dant , and“ al l o rig in al sen te nc in g de te rm in at io ns [m

us t] rem ai n u nc ha ng edwith the 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.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Bra vo , 20 3 F .3d77 8, 7 81 (11 thCir . 20 00 ); se e a ls o Di ll on v. Uni te d Sta tes , 56 0 U.S. __ _, _

__ , 13 0 S .Ct. 2 68 3, 2 69 3- 94 , __ _ L.Ed .2d__

_ (2 01 0) (ho ld in g t ha t § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) pe rm it s a d is tri ctco urt o nl y to subs ti tu te anam en de d g ui de li ne for th e g ui de li ne us edat t he ori gi na l s en te nc in g, an d tha t a c ou rt l ack s t he au th or it y to co rrec t m is ta ke s i n ade fen dant ’s ori gi na l s en te nc e).

6Here, the di st ric t co urt co rrec tl y fou ndth atitlac ke d t he au th or it y to gra nt Lawso n’s m ot io n fo r a s en te nc e reduc ti onun de r § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) an d Am en dm en t 70 6. Am en dm en t 7 06 di d n otha ve th e effe ctof l owe rin g Laws on ’s gu id el in e ran ge , bec au se hi s g ui de li ne ran ge was b as edon hi s s ta tu s as a care er o ffen de r. Se e Mo or e , 54 1 F .3dat 1 33 0. Mo reo ve r, th e Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si onin Ki mbr ou gh , st an di ng alo ne , di d n otpro vi de th e co urt wi th au th or it y to reduc e Lawso n’s s en te nc e. Se e Mo re no , 42 1 F .3dat 1 22 0- 21 . Alth ou gh Lawso n a rg ue s th atth e co urt i nc orrect ly fou ndth athe qu al ifi edas acare er o ffen de r, an d t ha t h is se nt en ce v io la te s t he Eig ht h Am en dm en t, b ot h o f th es e is su es lay ou ts id e th e li m it edsco pe of a§ 3 58 2( c)(2 ) pr oc eed in g, an d t he co urt l ack edau th or it y to ad dr es s t he se arg um en ts . Se e Bra vo , 20 3 F .3dat 7 81 -8 2. 1 AFFIRMED.

Moreove r, wenote that L awson did not raise the issue of whe ther he was incor rec tly 1 sentenc ed as a

car eer offe nder until he filed his reply brief. A ccor dingly , even if this argument wer e meritorious, we would not addre ss it. See Timson v. Sam pson , 518 F.3d 870, 874 ( 11th Cir. 2008) (holdingthat we do not addr ess an a rgument raised f

or the fir st tim e in a litiga nt’s reply brief) . 7