United States v. Jermaine Graham , 589 F. App'x 475 ( 2014 )

Case: 14-10222 Date Filed: 12/12/2014 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-10222
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:91-cr-00176-BAE-GRS-6
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JERMAINE GRAHAM,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(December 12, 2014)
Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jermaine Graham is a federal-prison inmate serving consecutive sentences,
imposed on January 19, 1992, of 360 months for conspiracy to possess with intent
Case: 14-10222 Date Filed: 12/12/2014 Page: 2 of 5
to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; and 60
months for use of a firearm in relation to that conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c). On November 6, 2013, he moved the District Court to reduce his 360-
month sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The District Court denied his
motion. He appeals the ruling, arguing that the District Court abused its discretion
in weighing the relevant purposes of sentencing set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)
and in continuing to require that the 60-month sentence run consecutively.
Pursuant to § 3582, a district court may modify a term of imprisonment that
was based on a Guidelines sentence range that has subsequently been lowered by
the United States Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). A
§ 3582(c)(2) proceeding does not constitute a de novo resentencing, and “all
original sentencing determinations remain unchanged with the sole exception of
the guideline range that has been amended since the original sentencing.” United
States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 781 (11th Cir. 2000) (emphasis omitted); see also
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1) (providing that all other Guidelines application decisions
remain unaffected).
Amendment 750 to the Guidelines amended the drug-quantity table in
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) to reduce offense levels in crack-cocaine cases. See U.S.S.G.
app. C, amend. 750 (2011). Amendment 750 was made retroactive by Amendment
2
Case: 14-10222 Date Filed: 12/12/2014 Page: 3 of 5
759, effective November 1, 2011. See id., amend. 759 (2011); see also U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10.
In deciding whether to apply a retroactive amendment to an eligible
defendant, the district court must follow a two-step process: (1) first, the district
court must determine what sentence it would have imposed after substituting the
amended Guidelines range for the original Guidelines range; and (2) second, the
district court must determine whether it will impose the newly calculated sentence
or retain the original sentence. United States v. Vautier, 144 F.3d 756, 760 (11th
Cir. 1998). Although the district court is required to complete both steps, the
decision of whether to reduce an eligible defendant’s sentence at all remains
entirely discretionary. Id.In conducting the second step, the district court must first consider the
statutory factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Bravo, 203 F.3d at 781; Vautier,
144 F.3d at 760; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B)(i) (providing that the court “shall
consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in determining” whether the
reduction is warranted and the extent of the reduction). Second, the district court
must consider public safety. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B)(ii) (“The court
shall consider the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the
community that may be posed by a reduction in the defendant’s term of
imprisonment in determining: (I) Whether such a reduction is warranted; and (II)
3
Case: 14-10222 Date Filed: 12/12/2014 Page: 4 of 5
the extent of such reduction, but only within the limits described in subsection
(b).”). Third, the district court may consider the defendant’s post-sentencing
conduct that occurred after the original sentence was imposed. See id. at cmt.
n.1(B)(iii).
A district court must impose a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than
necessary, to comply with the purposes” listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2), including
the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law,
provide just punishment for the offense, deter criminal conduct, and protect the
public from the defendant’s future criminal conduct. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2).
In imposing a particular sentence, the district court must also consider the nature
and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant,
the kinds of sentences available, the applicable Guidelines range, the pertinent
policy statements of the Sentencing Commission, the need to avoid unwarranted
sentencing disparities, and the need to provide restitution to victims. Id.§ 3553(a)(1), (3)–(7).
We find no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s denial of Graham’s
§ 3582(c)(2) motion and in retaining Graham’s original total sentence of
imprisonment, 420 months. Graham does not contend that the District Court erred
in calculating his new Guidelines sentence range, as required by Amendment 750.
The District Court fully considered the sentencing purposes set out in § 3553(a)(2),
4
Case: 14-10222 Date Filed: 12/12/2014 Page: 5 of 5
the public’s safety, and Graham’s post-sentencing conduct; it found that those
factors warranted the same sentence of 360 months it imposed for the conspiracy
offense. Section 924(c) required that the 60-month sentence be imposed
consecutively, so the District Court lacked the authority to disturb that sentence.
AFFIRMED.
5