FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT SEPT 12, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 08- 11415 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o ck etN o . 9 2 -0 6 1 2 2 -C R -W JZ U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s S E A N J O H N S O N , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 12, 2008) B efo re B L A C K , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

S ea n Joh nson , a f

eder al pri soner c on vi ct ed of a cr ac k cocai ne offens e, appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of hi s 18 U . S . C . § 3582( c ) ( 2) m ot i on f or re du ct i on of se nt ence base d o n an am endm entt o the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes that lo w e r e d th e b a s e o f

f e n s e le v e ls ap p lic ab le to c r a c k c o c a in e . T h e G o v e rn m e n t d id n o t fil e a re sp o n se to Jo h n so n ’s m o ti o n in th e d istrict co u rt, an d th e d istrict co u rt’s or de rde ny i ng J ohns on’ s m ot i on s t a t e d tha ti tha d “ c a r e f ul l y r e vi e w e d s a i d M ot i on a nd the e nt i r e c our tf

i l e ” a nd w a s “ othe rw i s e f ul l y a dvi s e d i n the pr e m i s e s . ” T he di stri ctcourtdi d n ototherw i se expl ai n i t s rul i ng . John son ass ert s the di stri ctcourt abus e d i t s di s c r e t i on be c a us e the ba s i s f orthe de ni a l c a nnotbe c l e a r l y di s c e rne d, th u s , e f f e c tiv e ap p e lla te r e v ie w is n o t p o s s ib le . W e r ev iew a d istrict co u rt’s d ec isio n w h eth erto re d u ce a d ef en d an t’ s s e n te n c e p u r s u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . U

ni ted Stat es v . Br o wn , 332 F . 3d 1341, 1343 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . G e ne r a l l y , “ the c our tm a y not m o d if y ate rm o f

im p r is o n m e n t o n c e it h a s b e e n im p o s e d .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) . H ow e ve r , w he r e ade f

e nda ntha s be e n s e nt e nc e d pur s ua ntt o as e nt e nc i ng r a nge

“ thathas s ub se qu ent l y bee n l ow er ed by the S ent enci ng C om m i ss i on . . . the court m a y r e d u c e th e te rm o f

im p r is o n m e n t, a f

te rc o n s id e r in g th e f

a c to r s s e t f

o r th in s e c tio n 3 5 5 3 ( a ) to th e e x te n t th a t th e y a r e ap p lic ab le , if s u c h ar e d u c tio n is c ons i s t e ntw i th appl i c abl e pol i c y s t a t e m e nt s i s s ue d by the S e nt e nc i ng3

C om m i s s i on. ” 18 U . S . C . § 3582( c ) ( 2) . S e c t i on 1B 1. 10( b) ( 1) of the S e nt e nc i ng G u i d el i n es p ro v i d es: I n de t e rm i ni ng w he the r , a nd t o w ha te xt e nt , ar e duc t i on i n the de f e nda nt ’ s t e rm of

i m pr i s onm e ntunde r18 U . S . C . § 3582( c ) ( 2) a nd thi s pol i c ys t a t e m e nti s w a rr a nt e d, the c our ts ha l l de t e rm i ne the a m e nde d gui de l i ne r a nge tha tw oul d ha ve be e n appl i c abl e t o the de f e nda nti f the a m e ndm e nt ( s ) t o the gui de l i ne s l i s t e d i n s ubs e c t i on (c ) had been i n eff

ec tatthe t i m e the defendantw as se nt ence d. In m a ki ng s uc h de t e rm i na t i on, the c our ts ha l l s ubs t i tut e onl y the a m e ndm e nt s l i s t e d i n s ubs e c t i on ( c ) f orthe c orr e s pondi ng gui de l i ne pr ovi s i ons tha tw e r e appl i e d w he n the de f e nda ntw a s s e nt e nc e d a nd s ha l l l e a ve a l l othe rgui de l i ne appl i c a t i on de c i s i ons una f f e c t e d. U . S . S . G . § 1 B 1. 10 (b)( 1). T he appl i ca t i on no t es for U . S . S . G . § 1 B 1. 10 i nstructthat the c our t : ( 1) s ha l l c ons i de rthe § 3553( a ) f a c t or s ; ( 2) s ha l l c ons i de rthe na tur e a nd s e r i ous ne s s of

the da nge rt o a ny pe r s on orthe c om m uni ty pos e d by the r e duc t i on; a n d ( 3 ) m a y c o n s i d e rth e p o s t - s e n t e n c i n g c o n d u c to f th e d e f e n d a n t . U. S . S . G. § 1 B 1. 10 , com m ent . (n. 1(B )) . W e h a v e in s tru c te d th a t in c o n s id e r in g ad e f e n d a n t’s m o tio n to r e d u c e h is s e nt e nc e pur s ua ntt o 18 U . S . C . § 3582( c ) ( 2) , adi s tr i c tc our tm us te nga ge i n atw opartanal ys i s: fi rs t , the courtm ustre ca l cul at e the se nt ence un der the am ended g u i d el i n es; seco n d , th e co u rtm u std eci d e w h eth er, i n i t s d i scret i o n , i tw i l l ch o o se to im p o s e an e w s e n te n c e o rr e ta in th e o r ig in a l s e n te n c e . U ni ted Stat es v. B ravo , 203 F . 3d 778, 780- 81 ( 11th C i r . 2000) . T he s e c ond pa r tof the a na l y s i s “ s houl d be m ade i n l i gh tof the fa ct ors l i st ed i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) . ” I d. a t 7 8 1 .4

T he di stri ctcourt ’ s orderdenyi ng John son’ s m ot i on st at ed thati thad “c a r e f u lly r e v ie w e d s a id M o tio n a n d th e e n tir e c o u r t f ile ” a n d w a s “o th e rw is e f u lly a d v is e d in th e p r e m is e s .” T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t o th e rw is e e x p la in its ru lin g . A c c or di ngl y , the r e c or d doe s notde m ons tr a t e the di s tr i c tc our tt ook the pe r t i ne nt f a c t or s i nt o a c c ounti n de ny i ng J ohns on’ s m ot i on. A c c or di ngl y , w e va c a t e the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de rde ny i ng J ohns on’ s m ot i on f orr e duc t i on of

s e nt e nc e a nd r e m a nd f orf ur the rc ons i de r a t i on a nd e xpl a na t i on. V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D.