[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
August 23, 2006
No. 06-11002 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 01-00201-CR-4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RICKY MAURICE THORPE,
a.k.a. Richard F. Williams,
a.k.a. Joseph Taylor,
a.k.a. Joenathan Leon Hayward,
a.k.a. Vincent Jerome Mobley,
a.k.a. Corey Ricky Thorpe,
a.k.a. Tony Thorpe,
a.k.a. Ricky Rat,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
_________________________
(August 23, 2006)
Before ANDERSON, DUBINA and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Ricky Maurice Thorpe, a pro se federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s
denial of his motion seeking modification of his term of imprisonment, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). On appeal, Thorpe argues that, pursuant to Amendment
599 to the Sentencing Guidelines, his offense level for a crime of unlawful
possession of a firearm during the commission of a drug trafficking crime could
not be increased by three levels based on a past conviction for possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon. Accordingly, he argues that his sentence should be
recalculated without the “three level enhancement” to his criminal history category
that he received for his 1994 conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon.
We review a district court’s decision of whether to reduce a sentence
pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Vautier, 144
F.3d 756, 759 n. 3 (11th Cir. 1998). According to § 3582(c)(2), a district court is
permitted to modify a defendant’s sentence if his sentencing range has been
subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 994(o). 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
Amendment 599 became effective November 1, 2000, and amended the
2
commentary to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4. U.S.S.G. App. C, Amendment 599. Section
2K2.4 sets forth a base offense level for individuals who have violated, inter alia,
18 U.S.C. § 924(c). U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4. Amendment 599 provides that, “[i]f a
sentence under [§2K2.4] is imposed in conjunction with a sentence for an
underlying offense, do not apply any specific offense characteristics for
possession, brandishing, use, or discharge of an explosive or firearm when
determining the sentence for the underlying offense.” U.S.S.G. App. C.,
Amendment 599.
Because Amendment 599 to the Sentencing Guidelines was in effect and
used by the district court in sentencing Thorpe, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Thorpe’s motion to reduce his sentence based upon that
amendment. In addition, Thorpe’s argument fails on the merits because
Amendment 599 only applies to specific offense characteristics, and not to criminal
history points. See U.S.S.G. App. C, Amendment 599. The amendment neither
specifically amends any parts of the guidelines pertaining to criminal history
points, nor makes references to those sections. In the instant case, the three
criminal history points were for a 1994 conviction that was unrelated to the offense
conduct giving rise to Thorpe’s conviction at issue on appeal. As there was no
abuse of discretion, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
3