FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT JUNE 26, 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. 07- 15060 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 7 - 0 0 0 0 8 - CR- O RL- 1 9 - K RS 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 H A W N T R E M A I N E H I L L , 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

_________________________ ( Ju n e 26, 2008) B efo re A N D E R S O N , C A RN E S an dB A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: S ha w n T r e m a i ne H i l l , f ol l ow i ng agui l typl e a , appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i ons a nd2

s e nt e nc e s f

orone c ountof

c ons pi r a c yt o pos s e s s w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e f i ve gram s or m ore of c ra ck cocai ne, on e c ou ntof po ss es si on w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e 5 o rm o r e g r a m s o f

c r a c kc o c a in e , a n do n e c o u n t o f p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to di s tr i but e c r a c k c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 846 a nd 841. O n appe a l he ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourtabused i t s di sc re t i on i n rej ec t i ng hi s i ni t i al gu i l ty pl ea , a nd tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtvi ol a t e d hi s S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o c onf r ont a t i on w hen i tdeni ed hi s c ou nsel ’ s r equestt o exam i ne a c od ef endantatthat codefendant ’ s c hang e of pl eahear i ng . H e f urther argues that , al tho ug h the di stri ct c o u rt d idn o t e rrin s e n te n c in g h im u n d e rth e g u id e lin e s in e f f e c t a t th e tim e o f

h is s e nt e nc i ng, the r e c e nta m e ndm e ntt o the s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s de c r e a s i ng the s e n te n c in g d is p a r itie s b e tw e e n c r a c kc o c a in e a n dp o w d e rc o c a in e s h o u ldb e u s e d to r e d u c e h is s e n te n c e . Up o n r e v i e w o f

th e r e c o r d a n dc o n s i d e r a t i o n o f th e p a rt i e s ’ b r i e f

s , we d is c e rn n o r e v e r s ib le e rr o r . I. W e have an obl i gat i on t o revi ew , sua s po nt e, ou r j uri sdi ct i on . U ni t ed S t at es v. C artw ri gh t , 41 3 F . 3d 12 95 , 12 99 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). Q uest i on s of j uri sdi ct i on ar e r e vi e w e d de novo, i d. , a nd w e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o he a rappe a l s di r e c t l yf r om fe dera l m agi stra t es . U ni t ed S t at es v. B row n, 44 1 F . 3d 13 30 , 13 52 (11th C i r.3

2 0 0 6 ) , c e rt. d e n ie d , 1 2 7 S .C t. 1 1 4 9 ( 2 0 0 7 ) ; F e d .R .C r im .P . 5 9 ( f a ilu r e to f

ile o b je c tio n s w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u rt w a iv e s ad e f e n d a n t’s r ig h t to r e v ie w ) . F u rth e r , a defe nd ant ’ s pl eaof gu i l ty f orec l oses al l no n-j uri sdi ct i on al defe ct s i n that d e f e n d a n t’s c o u rt p r o c e e d in g s . U n ite dS ta te s v . Y u n is , 7 2 3 F .2 d7 9 5 , 7 9 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 4 ) . B e c au s e H ill f

a ile d to ap p e a l th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e ’s d e c is io n to in itia lly r e je c t h is g u iltyp le ato th e d is tr ic t c o u rt, w e la c kju r is d ic tio n to e n te rta in h is c la im o f m ag i strat e j u d g e erro r. F u rth er, b ecau se th e ri g h tt o co n fro n tan ad v erse w i tn ess i s non -j uri sdi ct i on al , H i l l ’ s uncon di t i on al gu i l ty pl eafore cl osed hi s r i gh tt o ass ert thi s i s s ue on appe a l . A c c or di ngl y , hi s c onvi c t i ons a r e a f f i rm e d. II. W e r e v ie w ad is tr ic t c o u rt’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s f o rc le a re rr o ra n dits appl i c a t i on of

the G ui de l i ne s t o thos e f a c t s de novo. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. K i na r d, 472 F . 3d 1294, 1297 n. 3 ( 11th C i r . 2006) . A de f e nda nti s t o be s e nt e nc e d unde rthe g u i d e l i n e s th a ta r e i n e f f e c to n th e d a t e th a tth e d e f e n d a n ti s s e n t e n c e d . U. S . S . G. § 1 B 1 .1 1 ( a ) . I n th e e v e n t th a t th e s e n te n c in g r a n g e u p o n w h ic h ad e f e n d a n t is se nt ence d i s s ub se qu ent l y l ow er ed by the se nt enci ng com m i ss i on , a def endantm ay m o v e f o rar e d u c t i o n i n s e n t e n c e p u r s u a n tt o 1 8 U. S . C . § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) . U. S . S . G. § 1 B 1 .1 0 . S p e c if

ic a lly , § 3 5 8 2 s e c tio n p r o v id e s th a t:Hill’s reque st for oral argument is denied. 1 4 i n the c a s e of

ade fen d a ntw ho ha s be e n s e nt e nc e d t o a t erm of i m pri sonm entbase d o n a se nt enci ng rang e that ha s s ubs e que nt l ybe e n l ow e r e d bythe S e nt e nc i ng C om m i s s i on pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . 994( o) , upon m ot i on o f th e d ef

e n d an to r th e D i rect o r o f th e B u reau o f P ri so n s, oron i t s ow n m ot i on, the c ourtm a yr e duc e th e t e rm of 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 ya r e ap p lic ab le , if such a r educt io n i s c on si st entw i th app l i cabl e pol i cy s t a t e m e nt s i s s ue d bythe S e nt e nc i ng C om m i s s i on 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) . B e c au s e H ill a lle g e s n o e rr o ro n th e p a rt o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt, w e a f f irm h is se nt ence . M oreover, the re m edy avai l abl e t o H i l l un der the gu i del i nes, and as s ta te d u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 , is to m o v e th e d is tr ic t c o u rt f o rar e d u c tio n in s e nt e nc e ba s e d on the ne w l ye na c t e d a m e ndm e nt . A c c or di ngl y , H i l l ’ s c onvi c t i ons a nd s e nt e nc e s a r e a f

f i rm e d. AF F I RME D. 1