FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT JAN 4, 2007 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. 06- 10529 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 9 1 - 0 0 2 7 2 - C R - AJ 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 M A R C O A N T O N I O F E RN A N D E Z , 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 S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 4, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , D U B IN A an dH U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: M ar co A nt on i o F ernand ez , a pro se fe dera l pri soner, appeal s the di stri ct2

c ourt ’ s de ni a l of

hi s m ot i on s e e ki ng m odi f i c a t i on of

hi s s e nt e nc e , pur s ua ntt o 18 U . S . C . § 3 58 2(c) (2). In 19 91 , autho ri t i es arre st ed F ernand ez af t erhe had att em pt ed t o p art i ci pat e i n a drug “ rip o ff ” of 50 k i l og ram s of c ocai ne. A utho ri t i es re covered se vera l fi re arm s on h i s per son and fr om a r ent al vehi cl e, w hi ch w as goi ng t o be us e d f

orthe c oc a i ne “ r i p of

f . ” F e rna nde z w a s c ha r ge d w i th pos s e s s i on o f af i r e a rm b yac o n v i c t e df

e l o n , p u r s u a n tt o 1 8 U. S . C . § § 9 2 2 a n d9 2 4 ( e ) . He pl e d gui l tyt o pos s e s s i on of af i r e a rm byac onvi c t e d f

e l on, i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ). T h e b ase o ffen se l ev el u sedt o cal cu l at e h i s sen t en ce fo r h i s § 922( g) c onvi c t i on w a s de t e rm i ne d byhi s a tt e m ptt o “ r i p of f ” 50 ki l ogr a m s of coca i ne and then w as enhanced by tw o l evel s on the grou nd thatF ernand ez po ss es se d sever al dang er ou s f i re arm s duri ng the com m i ss i on of the att em pt ed of f e ns e . I n O c t obe r2005, F e rna nde z f i l e d the i ns t a ntm ot i on f orm odi f i c a t i on of hi s s ent ence , pu rs uantt o § 35 82 (c )( 2), ar gu i ng , am on g o ther thi ng s, that A m e n d m e n t 5 9 9 to th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s a n dth e S up r e m e C o u rt’s h o ld in g in U ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . 22 0, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8, 16 0 L . E d. 2d 62 1 (20 05 ), p er m itteda r ed u ctio n o f h is se n ten ce . T h e d istrict co u rt d en iedF ern an d ez ’s m o tio n f o rm o d if ic a tio n , f in d in g th a t: ( 1 ) A m e n d m e n t 5 9 9 w a s in ap p lic ab le to h is c a s e be c aus e i tappl i e s onl yt o c onvi c t i ons unde r18 U . S . C . § 924( c ) , c r i m i na l i z i ng th e c a rry in g o f

af ir e a rm du r in g a n din r e la tio n to ad ru g o f f e n s e , a n dn o t to3

conv i ct i on s und er§ 9 22 (g); and (2) a B oo ker c l ai m i s notcogn i zabl e und er § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) . O n ap p e a l, F e rn a n d e z a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ab u s e dits d is c r e tio n in det erm i ni ng thatA m endm ent59 9 d oes notappl y t o con vi ct i on s und er§ 9 22 (g)( 1), a s th e S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n ’s in te n tio n th a t A m e n d m e n t 5 9 9 a ls o ap p lie s to § 922( g) c onvi c t i ons i s e vi de nc e d bythe C om m i s s i on’ s us e of ac a s e i nvol vi ng a § 9 22 (g) c on vi ct i on , i n the abse nce of a § 924 (c ) c on vi ct i on , t o i l l ustra t e the prop er appl i c a t i on of

the a m e ndm e nt . H e a r gue s tha tthe S e nt e nc i ng C om m i s s i on’ s i nt e nt t o p rohi bi tdo ub l e c ou nt i ng w ou l d b e f rustra t ed i f adi stri ctcourtcoul d cal cul at e a de f e nda nt ’ s ba s e of

f e ns e l e ve l us i ng a n of

f e ns e notc ha r ge d, a nd the n e nha nc e the s e n te n c e f

o rp o s s e s s io n o f

f ir e a rm s in c o n n e c tio n w ith th a t o f f e n s e , a ll th e w h ile th e d e f e n d a n t is a c tu a llyb e in g c o n v ic te do f af ir e a rm p o s s e s s io n o f

f e n s e . A d d i t i o n a l l y , Fe rn a n d e z a r g u e s th a tth e d i s tr i c tc o u rte rr e db e c au s e th e Sup r e me C o u rt ’ s d eci si o n i n B o o k er am o u n t s t o a “ fo rm al ‘ cl ari fi cat i o n ’ ” o f th e g u i d el i n es, a n dth u s , c a n b e ap p lie dr e tr o a c tiv e lyu n d e r§ 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 3 ) to r e du c e h is s e n te n c e . W e r evi ew a di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on of w hether t o reduce a s ent ence pur s ua ntt o § 3582( c ) ( 2) f ora n abus e of

di s c r e t i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. V aut i e r , 144 F .3 d7 5 6 , 7 5 9 n . 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . A c c o r d in g to § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) , ad is tr ic t c o u rt is p e rm itte dto m o d if

yad e f e n d a n t’s s e n te n c e if

h is s e n te n c in g r a n g e s u b s e q u e n tly4

h a s b e e n lo w e r e db yth e S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 9 9 4 ( o ) . 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) . A m endm ent59 9 am ended the com m ent ary t o U . S . S . G . § 2 K 2. 4, w hi ch p r o v i d e s th e b a s e o f

f e n s e l e v e l f

o ri n d i v i du a l s w h o h a v e v i o l a t e de i th e r1 8 U . S. C. § § § 8 4 4 (h ), 9 2 4 (c), o r 9 2 9 (a). U . S . S . G . A p p . C , A m en d m en t5 9 9 ; see al so U . S . S . G . § 2K 2. 4. A m e ndm e nt599 pr ovi de s tha t , “ [ i ] f as e nt e nc e unde r[ §2K 2. 4] is im p o s e din c o n

ju n c tio n w ith as e n te n c e f o ra n u n d e r ly in g o f

f e n s e , d o n o t ap p ly a nys pe c i f

i c of f e ns e c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s f

orpos s e s s i on, br a ndi s hi ng, us e , ordi s c ha r ge of a n e xpl os i ve orf

i r e a rm w he n de t e rm i ni ng the s e nt e nc e f orthe unde r l y i ng of f e ns e . ” U . S . S . G . A pp. C . , A m e ndm e nt599. T he purpos e of A m e ndm e nt599 w a s “ t o c l a r i f

yunde rw ha tc i r c um s t a nc e s de f e nda nt s s e nt e nc e d f

orvi ol a t i ons of

18 U . S . C . § 924( c ) i n c onj unc t i on w i th c onvi c t i ons f orothe rof

f e ns e s m a yr e c e i ve w e ap o n e n h a n c e m e n ts c o n ta in e din th e g u id e lin e s f o rth o s e o th e ro f

f e n s e s .” I d .; see al so U n i t edS t at es v . D i az, 2 4 8 F . 3 d1 0 6 5 , 1 1 0 6 -0 7 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) (“ T h e fi rst s e n t e n c e o f

th e n e w ap p l i c a t i o n n o t e r e i n f o r c e s wh a tc o u rt s h a v e a l way s k n o wn w hen a defendanti s c on vi ct ed of a § 92 4(c) vi ol at i on and an u nd er l yi ng offe nse, the de f e nda nt ' s pos s e s s i on of

aw e apon c a nnotbe us e d t o e nha nc e the l e ve l of the u n d e r ly in g o f

f e n s e ” ) . I t w a s in te n d e dto p r e v e n t d o u b le c o u n tin g f o rf ir e a rm u s e in any one cri m i nal event . U ni t ed S t at es v. P ri ng l e, 35 0 F . 3d 11 72 , 11 80 (11th C i r.5

20 03 ). A m endm ent59 9 t o the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes i s i napp l i cabl e t o F ernand ez , b ecau se h e d i dn o tv i o l at e 1 8 U . S . C . § § § 8 4 4 (h ), 9 2 4 (c), o r 9 2 9 (a). A d d i t i o n al l y, b e c au s e th e S up r e m e C o u rt’s h o ld in g in B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 , 1 2 5 S .C t. 7 3 8 , is notagui de l i ne a m e ndm e ntm a de r e tr oa c t i ve l yappl i c abl e , the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d not abuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng F ernand ez ’ s m ot i on t o reduce hi s s ent ence . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e a f

f i rm. A FFI R M ED .