FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT AUG 28, 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- 14977 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 93 -001 21 -C R -J T C -1 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 L E R O Y N O L A N , 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 o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 28, 2008) B efo re A N D E R S O N , H U L L an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: L er oy N ol an appeal s pro se the deni al of hi s m ot i on t o reduce hi s s ent ence2

o f im p r is o n m e n t f

o rlif e f o rc o n s p ir in g to d is tr ib u te d ru g s . 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) . T he di stri ctcourtre

j ec t ed N ol an’ s argum entt o reduce hi s s ent ence un der A me n d me n t5 9 9 o f

th e Se n t e n c i n g G u i d e l i n e s . W e a f f i rm. I . B AC KG RO UN D N o la n w a s c o n v ic te d f

o rh is p a rtic ip a tio n in ac o n s p ir a c yto d is tr ib u te m i xtur e s of

drugs c ont a i ni ng he r oi n, c oc a i ne , a nd c oc a i ne ba s e . 21 U . S . C . §§ 84 1(a) (1), 84 6. N ol an w as l at erconv i ct ed of tw o cou nt s of posse ss i on of a f i re arm by a c on vi ct ed fe l on . 18 U . S . C . § 9 22 (g)( 1). T he di stri ctcourtse nt ence d N ol an for the three cr i m es base d o n a si ng l e pre se nt ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt . T he re po rt gr oupe d the c ons pi r a c y c onvi c t i on w i th one c ountof pos s e s s i on of

af i r e a rm f or offe nse l evel com pu t at i on s bec ause the fi re arm char ge “ em bo di e[ d] cond uctthat [ w a s ] tr e a t e d a s as pe c i f i c of f e ns e c ha r a c t e r i s t i c i n the gui de l i ne appl i c abl e ” t o the conspi ra cychar ge. U nd erthe gu i del i nes, the base offe nse l evel for the conspi ra cy c o n v ic tio n w a s e n h a n c e d b y tw o p o in ts b e c au s e N o la n p o s s e s s e d af ir e a rm in conn ec t i on w i th the offens e. S ee U . S . S . G . § 2 D 1. 1(b)(1). T he di stri ctcourt s e nt e nc e d N ol a n t o i m pr i s onm e ntf orl i f e f orthe c ons pi r a c yc onvi c t i on c onc urr e nt w i th tw o sen t en ces fo r 1 2 0 m o n th s fo r th e fi rearm s co n v i ct i o n s. T hi s C ou rtaf

fi rm ed N ol an’ s c on spi ra cyconv i ct i on and sent ence bu tvaca t ed a n d r e m a n d e d N o la n ’s c o n v ic tio n s a n d s e n te n c e s f o rth e p o s s e s s io n o f

f ir e a rm s .3

O n r e m a nd, the di s tr i c tc ourtgr a nt e d the m ot i ons of the gove rnm e ntt o di s m i s s the f ir e a rm s c h a r g e s . N o la n m o v e d f o rr e s e n te n c in g a n d a r g u e d th a t th e v a c a tu ro f h is f i r e a rm s c onvi c t i ons r e nde r e d the f i r e a rm e nha nc e m e nti nappl i c abl e t o hi s drug conspi ra cychar ge. T he di stri ctcourtdeni ed the m ot i on and rul ed thatthe evi dence supp ort ed i t s app l i ca t i on of the enhancem ent . T hi s C ou rtdi sm i ss ed N ol an’ s app ea l as u n t i m el y. N ol a n f i l e d ac ol l a t e r a l c ha l l e nge t o hi s s e nt e nc e . 28 U . S . C . § 2255. T he di stri ctcourtdeni ed the m ot i on on the m er i t s. T he di stri ctcourtand thi s C ou rt d en i ed N o l an ’ s m o t i o n s fo r a certi fi cat e o f ap p eal ab i l i ty. A f t e rN ol a n f

i l e d tw o othe rm ot i ons c ha l l e ngi ng hi s s e nt e nc e , he f i l e d a m ot i on t o m od i fy . S ee 18 U . S . C . § 3 58 2(c) (2), F ed. R . C i v. P . 60 (b). N ol an ar gu ed thatA m endm ent59 9 t o the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes barre d the di stri ctcourt f r o m s e n te n c in g h im f

o rth e p o s s e s s io n o f

f ir e a rm s a n d u s in g th a t s a m e c o n d u c t to enhance hi s s ent ence for hi s drug con spi ra cyconv i ct i on . T he di stri ctcourtdeni ed th e m o t i o n an d ru l ed th atA m en d m en t5 9 9 w as n o tap p l i cab l e t o N o l an “ b ecau se [ N ol a n] w a s notc onvi c t e d of vi ol a t i ng 18 U . S . C . §§ 844( h) , 924( c ) , or929( a ) ” a nd

“ there w as no do ub l e c ou nt i ng for f i re arm use i n a si ng l e c ri m i nal event . ”4 I I . STA N D A R D S O F R EVI EW

“ I n ap r o c e e d i n g t o m o d i f yas e n t e n c e u n d e r1 8 U. S . C . § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) , we r e v ie w d e n o v o th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s le g a l c o n c lu s io n s r e g a r d in g th e s c o p e o f its author i ty unde rthe S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W hi t e , 305 F . 3d 1264, 1267 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( c i t i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P e l a e z , 196 F . 3d 1203, 1205 (11th C i r. 19 99 )) . W e a l so re vi ew de no vo qu es t i on s r egar di ng subj ec tm att er ju r is d ic tio n . U n ite d S ta te s v . A l- A r ia n , 5 1 4 F .3 d 1 1 8 4 , 1 1 8 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) . I I I . DI S CUS S I ON N ol a n a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourts houl d ha ve appl i e d A m e ndm e nt599 of the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s t o m odi f yhi s s e nt e nc e a nd s houl d notha ve appl i e d the fi rearm en h an cem en tt o h i s sen t en ce fo r co n sp i racy t o d i stri b u t e d ru g s. T h ese a r gum e nt s f

a i l . W e a ddr e s s e a c h a r gum e nti n turn. A . A m e n dm e n t 5 9 9 D o e s N o t Ap p lyto N o la n . N o la n a r g u e s th a t A m e n d m e n t 5 9 9 b a r s e n h a n c e m e n t o f h is s e n te n c e f

o rh is pos s e s s i on of

af i r e a rm w he n he w a s c onvi c t e d a nd s e nt e nc e d on as e pa r a t e c ha r ge r e l a t e d t o the f

i r e a rm . H e a r gue s tha tthe appl i c a t i on of the f i r e a rm e nha nc e m e nt const i tut es do ub l e- coun t i ng . W e di sa gree . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d note rrbyc onc l udi ng tha tA m e ndm e nt599 di d not ap p lyto N o la n . A m e n d m e n t 5 9 9 a m e n d e d o n lyth e c o m m e n ta ryto S e c tio n 2 K 2 .45

o f th e S e n t e n c i n g Gu i d e l i n e s . U. S . S . G. Ap p . C . , Am e n d m e n t5 9 9 ; U. S . S . G. § 1B 1. 10( c ) . S e c t i on 2K 2. 4 gove rns the ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l f

ori ndi vi dua l s w ho have vi ol at ed se ct i on s 844 (h), 92 4(c) , or 92 9(a) of T i t l e 18 o f the U ni t ed S t at es C o d e . S e e U .S .S .G . § 2 K 2 .4 . A m e n d m e n t 5 9 9 w a s f a c tu a llyin ap p lic ab le to N ol a n’ s c onvi c t i on be c aus e he w a s s e nt e nc e d unde rS e c t i on 3D 1. 2. 21 U . S . C . §§ 84 1(a) (1), 84 6; se e U ni t ed S t at es v. A rm strong , 34 7 F . 3d 90 5, 90 8 (11 th C i r. 2003) . N ol a n’ s r e l a t e d a r gum e nttha thi s s e nt e nc e f orthe c ons pi r a c yc ha r ge in v o lv e d d u p lic a tiv e p u n is h m e n t is w ith o u t m e r it.

B . W e L ac k J ur is di c t i on to C ons i de rN olan’s Chal le nge o f th e Fir e a rm E n h a n c e m e n t. N o la n r a is e s tw o a r g u m e n ts r e g a r d in g th e u s e o f th e f ir e a rm e n h a n c e m e n t. F i r s t , he a r gue s f

orthe f i r s tt i m e on appe a l tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourts houl d notha ve appl i e d the e nha nc e m e ntbe c aus e the r e w a s no e vi de nc e t o e s t abl i s h tha the po ss es se d the fi re arm i n con nect i on w i th the drug conspi ra cyand h e never w as c ha r ge d w i th pos s e s s i on of aw e apon i n c onne c t i on w i th the c ons pi r a c y . S e c ond, N o la n a r g u e s th a t h is f

ir e a rm c o n v ic tio n w a s e rr o n e o u s lyb u n d le d w ith h is conspi ra cyconv i ct i on atse nt enci ng and, af t erthi s C ou rtvaca t ed the fi re arm c ha r ge s , he s houl d ha ve be e n r e s e nt e nc e d f orthe c ons pi r a c yc onvi c t i on. W h e n w e lo o kb e y o n d th e lab e l o f N o la n ’s m o tio n , U n ite d S ta te s v . S to s s e l, 3 4 8 F .3 d 1 3 2 0 , 1 3 2 2 n .2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) , w e d o n o t h a v e ju r is d ic tio n to e n te rta in6

h is a r g u m e n ts . N o la n d id n o t ap p lyf o ro rr e c e iv e p e rm is s io n f r o m th is C o u rt to fi l e asucc es si ve m ot i on t o v ac at e hi s s ent ence . S ee 28 U . S . C . §§ 22 44 (b)( 3)(A ), 22 55 (h). N ol an’ s argum enti s a l so prec l ud ed fr om re vi ew un der the l aw -of- thec a s e d o c tr in e . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt r e je c te d N o la n ’s a r g u m e n t to r e e x a m in e h is se nt ence , and w e di sm i ss ed the appeal of thatdeci si on as un t i m el y. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. E sc ob ar -U rr ego, 11 0 F . 3d 15 56 , 15 60 –6 1 (11 th C i r. 19 97 ). W e affi rm th e d en i al o f N o l an ’ s sect i o n 3 5 8 2 (c)(2 ) m o t i o n an d d i sm i ss N ol a n’ s r e m a i ni ng a r gum e nt s f orl a c k of

j ur i s di c t i on. A FFI R M ED I N PA R T; D I SM I SSED I N PA R T.