FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 22, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT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- 13 93 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :9 7- cr-0 02 33 -ASG-3

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 ROLAND AIKEN, a.k .a. Herm anTho m

ps on , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 22 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, WILSON andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Ro la ndAik en , a fed eral pri so ne r co nv ic te d o f as saul t wi th a da ng ero usweap on in aidof r ack et eeri ng , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 95 9( a)(3 ), an d u se of a

fir earm in rel at io n t o acri m e o f vi ol en ce, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( c), ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n fo r a se nt en ce re du ct io n. Ai ke n’s m ot io n was ba se d o n Am en dm en t 5 99 , whi ch cl ari fie d wh ena weap on s en ha nc em en t m ay be ap pl ie d t o a n u nd erl y in g o ffen se if th e d efen da ntwas a ls o c on vi ct edof a§ 9 24 (c) o ffen se . After r ev ie w, we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f Aik en ’s § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n. 1 On ap pe al , Aik enco nt en ds th e d is tri ctco urt erredin fin di ng th athe was se nt en cedas acare er o ffen de r an d t hu s i ne li gi bl e fo r a s en te nc e reduc ti on un de r § 3 58 2( c)(2 ). As to th e d is tri ctco urt’s al te rn at e ru li ng th athe was n oten ti tl edto a se nt en ce re du ct io n, Ai ke n a rg ue s t he di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b ecau se (1 ) th e co urt h adalr ead y

in co rp or at edin to Aik en ’s ori gi na l s en te nc e al l o f th e co nc ern s i t arti cu la te d re ga rd in g t he ser io us ne ss of t he off en se an d Ai ke n’s cri m in al hi st ory , and(2) th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s an d Ai ke n’s “ po st -s en te nc in g co nduc t” warran te d asen te nc e reduc ti on . Becaus e th e rec or d s uf fic ie nt ly 2
We “re view de novo a district cour t’s conclusions about the sc ope of its leg al authority 1 under 18 U .S.C. § 3582(c)(2) .” United States v. J ames , 548 F.3d 983, 984 ( 11th Cir. 2008). I f § 3582(c) (2) a

pplies, a district court’ s decision to g rant or de ny a sente nce r eduction is revie wed only for a n abuse of

discretion. Id . at 984 n.1. Aiken fur

ther a rgues he doe s not qualify

as a c are er of

fende r, and the district court’s 2 denial of his § 3582(c )(2) motion viol ated the D ouble J eopar dy Clause bec ause Amendment 599 rec og nized that his sentence ha d resulted in unwa rra nted “duplicative punishment.” Be cause 2supp orts th e d is tri ctco urt’s al te rn at iv e b as is forde nyin g Ai ke n’s m ot io n, we n eed

no t d et erm in e whe th er Ai ke n was sen te nc edas acare er o ffen de r. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Keen e , 47 0 F .3d13 47 , 13 48 –5 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) (ho ld in g t ha t wh ere t he di st ric t co urt s ta te s i t wo ul d h av e im po se d t he same sen te nc e, ev enab se ntth e al le ge d e rro r, we ne edon ly det erm in e whe th er the di stric t co urt’s al te rn at iv e reas on in g was reas on ab le ). If a d is tri ctco urt fi nd s i t h as th e au th or it y to reduc e a d efen da nt ’s sen te nc e un de r § 3 58 2( c)(2 ), th e co urt i s s pe ci fic al ly requ ire d t o c on si de r th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s, as well as “ th e n atur e an d s eri ou sn es s o f th e d an ge r to an y pe rs on or the co m m un ity th atm ay be po se d b y

a reduc ti onin th e d efen da nt ’s term of im pr is on m en t,” i n d et erm in in g wh at , if an y , reduc ti on is warran te d. U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .10 , cmt. n .1(B )(i )-(i i). Al th ou gh no t re qu ire d t o d o s o, t he co urt al so “ m ay co ns id er p os t-s en te nc in g c on du ctof t he de fen da ntth atoc cu rredaft er i m po si ti on of th e te rm of i m pr is on m en t.” Id . at cmt. n .1(B )(i ii ). Eve n a ss um in g ar

gu en do th atAik enwas n otori gi na ll y sen te nc edas a care er o ffen de r—a ndis th us eli gi bl e fo r a s en te nc e reduc ti on un de r § 3 58 2( c)(2 )—t he reco rdsupp orts th e d is tri ctco urt’s al te rn at iv e d et erm in at io n these c laims involve “extraneous re sentenc ing issues,” we do not addr ess them on appe al. See United States v. Brav o , 203 F.3d 778, 782 ( 11th Cir. 2000) (holding that § 3582(c)( 2) does not “grant to the c ourt jurisdiction to consider extraneous re sentenc ing issues” ). 3th atAik enwas n oten ti tl edto a se nt en ce re du ct io n. Th e rec or d d em on st rat es th at

th e p ert in en t re se nt en ci ng fact or s— es pe ci al ly A ik en ’s dem on st rat ed“ hi st ory of ex tre m e v io le nc e” u nd er § 35 53 (a)—were re as on ab ly tak enin to acco un t. Se e Uni te d Sta te s v. Va ut ie r , 14 4 F .3d75 6, 7 62 (11 th Cir . 19 98 )(n ot in g t ha t t he di st ric t co urt i s n otrequi redto “ art ic ul at e sp eci fic al ly the ap pl ic ab il it y , if an y , of each fact or , as l on g a s t he reco rdas awho le de m on st rat es th atth e p ert in en t fa ct or s were t ak enin to acco un t” ). In a dd it io n, ev enth ou gh th e co urt was no t re qu ire d t o co ns id er Ai ke n’s p os t-s en te nc in g c on du ct , th e co urt h eardarg um en t wi th reg ardto th is fact or , bu t u lt im at el y de ci de d t he re was no ba si s “ to warran t an y reduc ti on wha ts oe ve r in[it s] di sc ret io n.” Aik enha s n otde m on st rat edth atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d en y in g h is § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n. AFFIRMED.

4