FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T APRI L 4, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N o

. 0 9

- 1 3 8 9 1 N o n
- A r g u m e n t C a l e n d a r

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 9 7

- 0 0 2 1 3

- C R

- T

- 1 7 T B M

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e ,

v e r s u s

H A N D Y B A I L E Y , J R

. , D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A p p e a l f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e M i d d l e D i s t r i c t o f F l o r i d a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( A p r i l 4 , 2 0 1 1 )

B e f o r e E D M O N D S O N , P R Y O R , a n d A N D E R S O N , C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.

P E R C U R I A M :

H a n d y B a i l e y , J r

. , a p r o s e f e d e r a l p r i s o n e r c o n v i c t e d o f c r a c k

- c o c a i n e

o f f e n s e s , a p p e a l s t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f h i s m o t i o n f o r “ r e e x a m i n a t i o n ” o f a ne a r l i e r d e n i a l o f h i s 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) m o t i o n f o r a s e n t e n c e r e d u c t i o n

.
B a i l e y a r g u e s t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t w r o n g l y c o n s t r u e d h i s p l e a d i n g a s a m o t i o n f o r

r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n s t e a d o f a n e w s e c t i o n 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) m o t i o n

. E v e n i f w e a c c e p t

B a i l e y ’ s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t h i s “ r e e x a m i n a t i o n ” m o t i o n w a s a n e w s e c t i o n 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 )

m o t i o n ( a n d n o t a m o t i o n f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n ) , n o r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r h a s b e e n s h o w n ;

w e a f f i r m

.
B a i l e y ’ s m o t i o n s e e k s a s e c t i o n 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) r e d u c t i o n o f s e n t e n c e i n t h e l i g h t

o f A m e n d m e n t 7 1 3 t o t h e s e n t e n c i n g g u i d e l i n e s a n d t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n

i n S p e a r s v

. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 1 2 9 S

. C t

. 8 4 0 ( 2 0 0 9 )

. A m e n d m e n t 7 1 3 , s u b j e c t t o

t e c h n i c a l c h a n g e s e f

f e c t e d b y A m e n d m e n t 7 1 1 , m a d e r e t r o a c t i v e l y a p p l i c a b l e t h e

c r a c k

- c o c a i n e o f

f e n s e
- l e v e l r e v i s i o n s t o U

. S

. S

. G

. § 2 D 1

. 1 t h a t w e r e e f f e c t e d b y

A m e n d m e n t 7 0 6

. B u t B a i l e y w a s s e n t e n c e d a s a c a r e e r o f f e n d e r u n d e r U

. S

. S

. G

. §

4 B 1

. 1 ; h i s g u i d e l i n e s r a n g e w a s n o t b a s e d o n t h e c r a c k

- c o c a i n e p r o v i s i o n s o f

U

. S

. S

. G

. 2 D 1

. 1

. B e c a u s e n o n e o f t h e s e n t e n c i n g g u i d e l i n e s a m e n d m e n t s t o w h i c h

B a i l e y c i t e s h a v e t h e e f

f e c t o f r e d u c i n g t h e a p p l i c a b l e g u i d e l i n e r a n g e f o r c a r e e r

o f f e n d e r s , B a i l e y i s e n t i t l e d t o n o s e c t i o n 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) r e l i e f b a s e d o n t h o s e

a m e n d m e n t s

. S e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. M o o r e , 5 4 1 F

. 3 d 1 3 2 3 , 1 3 2 7

- 2 8 ( 1 1 C i r

. th

2 0 0 8 )

. 1

Ba iley ’s ea

rlier f iled motion for sentenc e re duction based on A mendments 706 and 711 1 to the sentenc ing g uidelines was de nied with citation to Moore. Tha t denial was summar ily

2B a i l e y a r g u e s t h a t S p e a r s v

. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 1 2 9 S

. C t

. 8 4 0 ( 2 0 0 9 ) i m p l i c i t l y

o v e r r u l e d M o o r e b y h o l d i n g t h a t d i s t r i c t c o u r t s h a v e d i s c r e t i o n t o r e j e c t t h e

s e n t e n c i n g g u i d e l i n e s ’ p o l i c y s t a t e m e n t s

. B a i l e y ’ s r e l i a n c e o n S p e a r s i s m i s p l a c e d

.
S p e a r s i n v o l v e d a n o r i g i n a l s e n t e n c i n g , n o t a s e n t e n c e m o d i f i c a t i o n a f t e r

q u a l i f y i n g f o r r e l i e f u n d e r s e c t i o n 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 )

. I n t h e l i g h t o f t h e l i m i t e d s c o p e a n d

p u r p o s e o f s e c t i o n 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) , s e n t e n c e m o d i f i c a t i o n s u n d e r t h a t s e c t i o n d o n o t

i m p l i c a t e t h e i n t e r e s t s i d e n t i f i e d i n U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. B o o k e r , 1 2 5 S

. C t

. 7 3 8 ( 2 0 0 5 )

.
D i l l o n v

. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 1 3 0 S

. C t

. 2 6 8 3 , 2 6 9 2 ( 2 0 1 0 )

.
A F F I R M E D

. 2

aff irmed on appe al following the consolidation of B ailey ’s appe al with other a ppeals fr om car eer offe nders se eking section 3582 re lief. While we ar e ac cepting Ba iley ’s contention that his citation to Amendment 713 and Spea rs allows the instant motion to be treate d as a ne w sec tion 3582(c) motion, the relief soug ht is based on the substantive cha ng e ef fec ted by Amendment 706.

Be cause we a cce pt that Ba iley filed a ne w sec tion 3582(c)( 2) motion, we nee d not 2 addre ss the jurisdictional issues raised by the g overnme nt about motions t o rec onsider cr iminal matters.
3