FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DECEMBER 9, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 72 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :9 6- cr-0 07 98 -FAM- 1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us SYLVESTER REID, 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 9, 2 01 1) Befo re BARKETT, HULL andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Sy lv es te r Rei d, a f ed eral pri so ne r pr oc eed in g p ro se, app eal s h is to ta l 6 10 m on th s’ sen te nc e im

po se d a fte r th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d h is 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n t o re du ce h is sen te nc es ba se d o n Am en dm en t 5 99 to th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es . Afte r a 1 99 6 ju ry

tri al , Rei d was co nv ic te d o f th ree c ou nt s o f Hob bs Act ro bb ery, invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 95 1( a) (C ou nt s On e, Thre e an d F iv e) an d th ree c ou nt s o f us in g afir earm du rin g a ndinrel at io n t o t he rob be rie s, i n v io la ti on of 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (c) (C ou nt s Two , Fou r an d S ix ). At s en te nc in g, the di st ric t co urt, am on g o th er thi ng s, ap pl ie d afiv e-l ev el “ sp eci fic off en se ch arac te ris ti c” in crea se forCo un ts One, Th ree a ndFiv e (the rob be rie s) be cau se Rei d h ad br an di sh eda fi rearm . See U.S.S.G. § 2 B3 .1(b )(2 )(C) . The d is tri ctco urt i m po se d co nc urren t 1 20 -m on th sen te nc es on Co un ts One, Th ree a ndFiv e; a m an da to ry co ns ecu ti ve 60 -m on th sen te nc e o n C ou ntTwo; an d m an da to ry co ns ecu ti ve 24 0- m on th sen te nc es on Co un ts Fo uran d S ix , foranin it ia l t ot al 66 0- m on th sen te nc e. Rei d app eal edhi s co nv ic ti on s, b utno t h is sen te nc es . This Co urt af firm ed . See Uni te d S ta te s v . Rei d, No . 98 -4 33 7 (1 1t h C ir. Au g. 2 0, 1 99 9) (unpubl is he d) . On No ve m

be r 1, 2 00 0, Am en dm en t 5 99 am en de d the co m m en ta ry to U.S.S.G. § 2 K2.4 , whi chpro vi de s the ba se off en se lev el fora de fen da ntwho co m m it s a § 92 4( c) o ffen se . After Am en dm en t 5 99 , if the di st ric t co urt i m po se s a 2§ 9 24 (c) s en te nc e “ inco njunc ti on with asen te nc e fo r th e und erl y in g o ffen se ” th e

co urt “ do [es ] no t ap pl y

an y sp eci fic off

en se ch arac te ris ti cs forpo ss es si on , br an di sh in g, u se , or d is ch arg e o f anex pl os iv e o r fi rearm whende te rm in in g t he se nt en ce fo r th e und erl y in g o ffen se .” U.S.S.G. app . C, am en d. 5 99 . In20 08 , Rei d fi le d apro se § 35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n b as edon Am en dm en t 5 99 . Rei d a rg ue d t ha t und er Am en dm en t 5 99 , hi s co ns ecu ti ve , twen ty-y ear s en te nc es on Co un ts Fo uran d S ix were i m pr op er b ecau se th ey

were ch arg edina si ng le in di ctm en t. The di st ric t co urt d en ie d R ei d’s § 35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n. Onap pe al , th is Co urt af firm edth e d is tri ctco urt as to Co un ts Two, Fo uran d S ix (th e fi rearm co un ts ) be cau se Am en dm en t 5 99 ha d n o e ffec t o n tho se sen te nc es . Howev er, the Co urt v acat edan d re m an de d a s t o C ou nt s On e, Thre e an d F iv e (the rob be ry co un ts ) be cau se ap pl ic at io n o f Am en dm en t 5 99 eli m in at edth e “ sp eci fic off en se ch arac te ris ti c” en hanc em en t o f U.S.S.G. § 2 B3 .1(b )(2 )(C) , whi chres ul te d i n ane w gu id el in es ran ge of 7 0 t o 8 7 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t o n t ho se co un ts . See Un it ed St at es v. Re id , 36 4 F . App ’x 55 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) . As no te d e arl ie r, th e o rig in al se nt en ce o n t he se co un ts was 1 20 m on th s co nc urren tl y . On re m an d, Re idwas re pr es en te d b y co un se l an d a rg ue d, i nt er al ia , th atth e di st ric t co urt s ho ul d re se nt en ce Re idto a si ng le m an da to ry 60 -m on th sen te nc e o n Co un ts One, Th ree andFiv e b ecau se th ey were ch arg edinth e sam e in di ctm en t 3an d t he sen te nc es were i m po se d o n t he same day . The d is tri ctco urt g ran te d 1 Rei d’s § 35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n a ndim po se d thr ee co nc urren t 7 0- m on th sen te nc es , at th e lo w endof t he ne w, am en de d g ui de li ne s ra ng e, as to Co un ts One, Th ree a nd Fi ve . The d is tri ctco urt ra n t he th ree, n ew 70 -m on thsen te nc es co nc urren t t o e ach ot he r, bu t co ns ecu ti ve to th e unc ha ng edsen te nc es forCo un ts Two, Fo uran d S ix , fo r a t ot al of 6 10 m on th s. On ap pe al , Rei d a rg ue s tha t: (1) hi s 1 99 6 i nd ic tm en t was fla wedbe cau se it di d n otid en ti fy

with s uf fic ie ntsp eci fic it y

un de r whi chsubs ect io n o f § 9 24 (c) h e was ch arg ed ; (2 ) Co un ts Fo uran d S ix sh ou ldno t h av e rec ei ve d c on se cu ti ve , twen ty-y ear s en te nc es as “ se co ndor s ub se qu en t” co nv ic ti on s u nd er § 92 4( c) be cau se th os e o ffen se s wer e ch arg edinth e sa m e in di ctm en t as Co un t Two ; an d (3 ) rem an d i s n eces sa ry

be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt fa il edto ad dr es s the se arg um en ts whe n i t g ran te d h is § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n. The pro bl em

for Rei d i s tha t h is cla im s ar e o ut si de th e sc op e o f hi s

Reid also argued that, pursua nt to Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 1229 1 (2011), he was e ntitled to a full resente ncinghearing, inc luding c onsideration of his postsentenc ing r ehabilitation. Even c onstrued libera lly , Reid’s pro se a ppellate brief doe s not raise this argument, and thus he ha s abandone d it. See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (explaining that, a lthough we construe pro se plea dings liber ally , “issues not brief ed on appea l by

a pro se litigant ar e dee med aba ndoned”) . 4§ 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n. Und er § 35 82 (c)( 2) , th e d is tri ctco urt m ay reduc e an 2 in carc erat edde fen da nt ’s term of i m pr is on m en t wh enth e d efen da ntha s b een se nt en cedpu rs ua ntto a gu id el in es ran ge “ th atha s s ub se qu en tl y be enlo weredby th e Sen te nc in g C omm is si on .” 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ). Howev er, a § 35 82 (c)( 2) pr oc eed in g “ do es no t co ns ti tu te a de no vo res en te nc in g” an d “ al l o rig 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 eenam en de d s in ce the ori gi na l s en te nc in g.” Uni te d St at es v. Br av o, 2 03 F.3d77 8, 7 81 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Here, o nl y

th e se nt en ces forCo un ts One, Th ree a ndFiv e rec ei ve d t he

“ sp eci fic off

en se ch arac te ris ti c” en ha nc em en t el im in at edby Am en dm en t 5 99 . As su ch , th es e were t he on ly sen te nc es th e d is tri ctco urt co ul d m od ify. T he di st ric t co urt l ack edth e au th or it y un de r § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) to co ns id er Re id ’s arg um en ts reg ard in g h is in di ctm en t an d h is sen te nc es forCo un ts Two, Fo uran d S ix . 3 Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly lim it edit s d et erm in at io n t o wh ethe r to reduc e Rei d’s s en te nc es onCo un ts One, Th ree a ndFiv e.

We reviewde novo the district cour t’s leg al conc lusions reg ardingthe scope of its 2 authority under 18 U .S.C. § 3583(c)(2) . United States v. Moore, 541 F .3d 1323, 1326 (11th Cir. 2008). Reid’s arguments are also barred by the law of

the ca se doctrine beca

use he did not ra ise 3 them in his direct appe al af ter his orig inal sentenc ing. See United States v. Escoba r-Ur reg o, 110 F.3d 1556, 1560 ( 11th Cir. 1997). 5AFFIRMED.

6