[DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 10 15 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :9 5- cr-0 60 31 -DTKH-1

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 l l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us NORMAN ROBINS ON, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jul y 12 , 20 12 ) Befo re BARKETT, PRYOR an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Norm anRo bi ns on , pro ceed in g pr o s e , app eal s the di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o fhi s 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n fo r a s en te nc e reduc ti on ba se d o n re tro act iv e

Am en dm en t 7 50 to th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es . Am en dm en t 7 50 to okeffe cton Nov em be r 1, 2 01 1, an d re pr om

ul ga te d a s p erm an en t the tem po rary em erg en cy Am en dm en t 7 48 , whi ch , am on g o th er thi ng s, l owe redth e b as e o ffen se lev el s fo r pa rti cu lar cra ckco cai ne qu an ti ti es li st edinU.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (c), p ur su an t t o the Fai r Sen te nc in g Actof 2 01 0 (“ FSA”), Pub. L. No. 1 11 -2 20 , 12 4 S tat. 2 37 2. Se e U.S.S.G. App . C, Am en ds . 74 8, 7 50 . For t he reas on s s etforth be lo w, we affi rm . I. In19 95 , Rob in so n was co nv ic te d b y a jury on o ne co un t o f co ns pi rin g t o po ss es s wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e cra ckco cai ne , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ) an d 8 46 , andtwo co un ts of p os se ss in g wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e cra ck
co cai ne , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) . The p ro ba ti on off ic er ca lc ul at ed Ro bi ns on ’s gu id el in e ran ge us in g the 19 94 ve rs io n o f th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es . The off ic er i ni ti al ly ass ig ne d h im a ba se off

en se lev el of 3 2, p ur su an t t o U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (a)( 3) an d (c )(6 ), be cau se hi s o ffen se in vo lv edat l eas t 5 0 g ram s b utles s th at15 0 g ram s o f cra ckco cai ne . Howev er, b ecau se Ro bi ns onha d a t l eas t two pr io r fel on y

co nv ic ti on s fo r a cri m e o f vi ol en ce, h e qua li fie d a s a c aree r of fen de r
un de r U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1, re su lt in g i n ato ta l o ffen se lev el of 3 7. Th is off en se lev el , co m bi ne d wi tha cri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory of VI, yield eda gu id el in e ran ge of 3 60
2m on th s t o l ife im pr is on m en t. The di st ric t co urt u lt im at el y sen te nc edRo bi ns on to 36 0 m on th s i n p ris on on all co un ts , to be serve d c on cu rren tl y . Ro bi ns on subs eque nt ly file d the in st an t § 35 82 (c)( 2) m ot io n t o re du ce h is
se nt en ce, p red ic at edon Am en dm en t 7 50 . The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d the m ot io n,
reas on in g tha t Ro bi ns on ’s sen te nc e cal cu la ti on was b as edon th e car eer- of fen de r gu id el in e in § 4 B1 .1, n otth e am en de d c rackco cai ne gu id el in es in§ 2 D1.1
. Bec au se hi s g ui de li ne ran ge was n otlo weredby Am en dm en t 7 50 , a se nt en ce reduc ti on un de r § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) was no t au th or iz ed
. II. On ap pe al , Rob in so n c on ced es th athe was s en te nc edas acare er o ffen de r, bu t ar gu es th athe is ne ve rth el es s en ti tl edto rece iv e a s en te nc e reduc ti on un de r § 3 58 2( c)(2 ). He co nt en ds , ess en ti al ly, th atAm en dm en t 7 50 was d eri ve d fr om th e FSA an d, the refo re, al lo ws al l d efen da nt s wh o wer e co nv ic te d o f cra ckco cai ne of fen se s t o re cei ve sen te nc e reduc ti on s, ev enif the y were s en te nc edas c aree r of fen de rs un de r § 4 B1 .1. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on no t t o re du ce a s en te nc e p ur su an t t o § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. Mo re no , 42 1 F .3d12 17 , 12 19 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). The d is tri ctco urt’s l eg al co nc lu si on s re ga rd in g the sco pe of it s au th or ity

un de r th e Gui de li ne s ar e rev ie wed de no vo . Uni te d Sta tes v. 3Moo re , 54 1 F .3d13 23 , 13 26 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Und er § 35 82 (c)( 2) , wher e a

de fen da nt ’s term

of i m pr is on m en t was ba se d o n agu id el in e ran ge “ th atha s
subs eque nt ly beenlo weredby the Sen te nc in g C omm is si on ,” a d is tri ctco urt h as th e d is cret io n t o re du ce the sen te nc e “ if s uc h areduc ti on is co ns is te ntwith ap pl ic ab le po li cy

st at em en ts ” o f th e Gui de li ne s. 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 82 (c)( 2) . The ap pl ic ab le po li cy

st at em en t, fo un d i n U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 0, l is ts th os e g ui de li ne
am en dm en ts th atm ay

ap pl y retro act iv el y

to reduc e a s en te nc e, an d Am en dm en t 75 0 (p art s A an d C on ly) is i nc lu de d i n tha t l is t. U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .10 (c). Ho wev er,
a se nt en ce re du ct io n i s n otau th or iz edif the li st edam en dm en t “ do es no t h av e th e effe ctof l owe rin g the de fen da nt ’s app li cab le gu id el in e ran ge .” Id

. § 1 B1 .10 (a)( 2) (B). In Moo re , we facedth e que st io n o f whe th er d efen da nt s wh o wer e se nt en ced
as care er o ffen de rs un de r § 4 B1 .1 wer e el ig ib le for§ 3 58 2( c)(2 ) rel ie f in li gh t o f Am en dm en t 7 06 , whi ch , li ke Am en dm en t 7 50 , lo weredth e b as e o ffen se lev el s fo r cert ai n qua nt it ie s o f cra ck co cai ne un de r U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (c). Moo re , 54 1 F .3d at13 25 -2 7. We hel d tha t the de fen da nt s d idno t qua li fy for§ 3 58 2( c)(2 ) rel ie f be cau se Am en dm en t 7 06 ha d n o e ffec t o n the ir g ui de li ne ran ge s, wh ic h wer e cal cu la te d u nd er § 4B 1.1
. Id. at 1 32 7- 30
. Inth is cas e, Ro bi ns on was s en te nc edas acare er o ffen de r un de r § 4 B1 .1,
4an d, the refo re, Am en dm en t 7 50 ha d n o e ffec t o n h is gu id el in e ran ge . Se eU.S.S.G.

App . C, Am en d. 7 50 ; Moo re , 54 1 F .3dat 1 32 7- 30 . Alth ou gh Moo re was d eci de d pr io r to th e FSA’s en actm en t, n ot hi ng inth e FSA al te rs th e fac t tha t § 35 82 (c)( 2)
on ly allo ws s en te nc e reduc ti on s i f th e d efen da nt ’s gu id el in e ran ge “ ha s
subs eque nt ly beenlo weredby the Sen te nc in g C omm is si on ,” an d the Co m m is si on di d n otlo wer Ro bi ns on ’s caree r-o ffen de r gu id el in e ran ge th ro ug h Am en dm en t 75 0. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ); F SA, Pub. L. No. 1 11 -2 20 , 12 4 S ta t. 2 37 2. In th is li gh t, the di st ric t co urt h adno au th or ity to m od ify Rob in so n’s s en te nc e und er § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) an d d idno t err in de nyin g h is m ot io n. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ); U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .10 (a)( 2) (B). Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm . 1 AFFIRMED.

In his brief to this Court, Robi nson cites extensively to Freem an v. United States , 564 1 U.S. __, 131 S.C t. 2685, 180 L .Ed.2d 519 (2011) (plurality opinion). Howeve r, his relianc e on Freem an is mispl ace d. In that case , a plura lity of Supreme Court Justi ces he ld that a district court may grant a § 3582(c) (2) r eduction whe re thedefe ndant had r ece ived a spe cific se ntence pursuant to a plea

agree ment and the se ntence was ba sed on subseque ntly amende d Guidelines. See F reem an , 564 U.S. at __, 131 S.Ct . at 2691-95. He re, Robinson neve r ente red into a ple a agree ment, and, as pr eviously explained, his guideline r ang e wa s not based on subseque ntly amende d Guidelines. 5