### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T D e c e m be r 27, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ 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. 05- 12489 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 9 7 - 0 0 0 0 1 - C R - OR L - 1 9 - DA B 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 J U A N M I G U E L D I E Z , 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 M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 27, 2005) B efo re T JO F L A T , B L A C K an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: I n th is c a s e , ap p e lla n t w a s c o n v ic te d o f c o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to2

di stri bu t e m ar i

j uana and cocai ne, i n v i ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . § 8 46 . T he di stri ct court , adop t i ng the pres ent ence re po rt ’ s S ent enci ng G ui del i nes det erm i nat i on , se t ap p e lla n t’s b a s e o f

f e n s e le v e l a t 4 3 a f

te rap p ly in g th e c r o s s - r e f e r e n c e in U .S .S .G . § 2 D 1 .1 ( d ) ( 1 ) , w h ic h r e q u ir e d th e c o u rt to u s e U .S .S .G . § 2 A 1 .1 b e c au s e av ic tim w as ki l l ed un der c i rc um st ance s thatw ou l d con st i tut e m urder. A pp el l ant ’ s c ri m i nal hi s t ory c a t e gory w a s I I , w hi c h, a tof f e ns e l e ve l 43, c a l l e d f

oral i f e s e nt e nc e of i m pri sonm ent . T he courtse nt ence d app el l antt o l i fe i m pri sonm ent(a ft er o v erru l i n g ap p el l an t ’ s o b j ect i o n t o th e co u rtfi n d i n g th e rel ev an tm u rd ers b y a prepon dera nce of the evi dence). A ppe l l a ntappe a l e d hi s c onvi c t i on. W e a f f i rm e d. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R i dg ew ay , N o. 97 -292 7 (11 th C i r. Jul y 22, 19 98 ), O n A pri l 20 , 20 05 , appel l antm ov ed the di stri ctcourtt o m od i fyhi s s ent ence p u r s u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) , c o n te n d in g th a t h e w a s e n title d to h a v e h is s e nt e nc e r e duc e d unde rA m e ndm e nt591 t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s S e nt e nc i ng G u id e lin e s , w h ic h p r o v id e th a t w h e n th e c o u rt d e te rm in e s th e g u id e lin e ap p lic ab le t o the of f e ns e c onduc t , the c ourtm us tr e f e rt o the gui de l i ne r e f

e r e nc e d i n the st atut ory i nd ex for the offens e of c on vi ct i on . H e argued thathe had b ee n con vi ct ed o f a1 8 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 c o n s p ir a c y b u t s e n te n c e d p u r s u a n t to th e g u id e lin e ap p lic ab le t o m ur de ri n the f

i r s tde gr e e . T he c ourtde ni e d the m ot i on w i thoute xpl a na t i on, a nd3

h e n o w ap p e a ls . P ur s ua ntt o 18 U . S . C . § 3582( c ) ( 2) , upon the m ot i on of ade f e nda nt se nt ence d t o a t erm of i m pri sonm entbase d o n a se nt ence rang e thatw as s ubs e que nt l y l ow e r e d by the S e nt e nc i ng C om m i s s i on, “ the c ourtm a y r e duc e the 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 rth 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 o n s is te n t w ith ap p lic ab le 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 ng C om m i s s i on. ” T he S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s e xpl i c i t l y s t a t e tha tA m e ndm e nt591 c a n be r e tr oa c t i ve l y appl i e d upon a m o tio n u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) . U .S .S .G . § § 1 B 1 .1 0 ( a ) ,( c ) . I n r e le v a n t p a rt,

“ A m e ndm e nt591 r e qui r e s tha tthe i ni t i a l s e l e c t i on of the of f e ns e gui de l i ne be ba s e d onl y on the s t a tut e orof f e ns e of c onvi c t i on r a the rtha n on j udi c i a l f i ndi ngs of a c tua l c onduc tnotm a de by the j ury . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M or e no, 421 F . 3d 1217, 1219- 20 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( hol di ng tha tA m e ndm e nt591 onl y appl i e s t o the s e le c tio n o f

th e ap p lic ab le o f

f e n s e g u id e lin e , n o t th e s e le c tio n o f th e ap p r o p r ia te base offe nse l evel w i thi n thatgu i del i ne); U . S . S . G . A pp . C , am end. 59 1 (20 03 ). A cc ordi ng t o A pp endi x A of the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes, § 2 D 1. 1 i s an ap p ro p ri at e g u i d el i n e t o ap p l y w h en a d efen d an th as b een co n v i ct ed o f an o ffen se covered und er21 U . S . C . 84 6. S ec t i on 2D 1. 1(d)(1) s t at es that“ [i ] f avi ct i m w as k ille d u n d e rc ir c u m s ta n c e s th a t w o u ld c o n s titu te m u r d e ru n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 1 1 . .4

. , ap p l y § 2 A 1 . 1 (F i rstD eg ree M u rd er). ” S ect i o n 2 A 1 . 1 p ro v i d es a b ase o ffen se le v e l o f 4 3 . B e c aus e the di s tr i c tc ourtc hos e the c orr e c tba s e of f e ns e gui de l i ne , a nd A m endm ent59 1 d oes notpreventthe courtfr om usi ng offe nse c on du ctother than the of f e ns e of c onvi c t i on t o appl y ac r os s - r e f e r e nc e w i thi n the appl i c abl e gui de l i ne f orthe of f e ns e of c onvi c t i on, the c ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng ap p e lla n t’s m o tio n to m o d if y h is s e n te n c e . AF F I R ME D.