United States v. Reginald Lashawn Sawyer ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •            Case: 16-17679   Date Filed: 01/03/2019   Page: 1 of 3
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 16-17679
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 2:06-cr-00298-WKW-SRW-1
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    REGINALD LASHAWN SAWYER,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Alabama
    ________________________
    (January 3, 2019)
    Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Case: 16-17679     Date Filed: 01/03/2019   Page: 2 of 3
    Reginald Lashawn Sawyer appeals the district court’s sua sponte
    determination that he is not eligible for a sentence reduction under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(2). Sawyer contends on appeal that: (1) he is eligible for a sentence
    reduction under § 3582(c)(2) because the Sentencing Commission, through
    Amendment 782, subsequently lowered the Guidelines ranges applicable to his
    sentence, as calculated under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c); and (2) the district court
    abused its discretion by determining Sawyer would not be entitled to a sentence
    reduction even if he were eligible under § 3582(c)(2). We need not address
    Sawyer’s second contention because we conclude Sawyer was ineligible for relief
    under § 3582(c)(2).
    A defendant may be entitled to a reduced sentence under § 3582(c)(2) if he
    “has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that
    has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(2) (emphasis added). While this appeal was pending, the Supreme Court
    issued its opinion in Koons v. United States, 
    138 S. Ct. 1783
     (2018). Koons held
    that sentences are not “based on” Guidelines ranges that subsequently have been
    lowered by the Sentencing Commission” if “the ranges play[ed] no relevant part in
    the judge’s determination of the defendant’s ultimate sentence.” 
    Id. at 1788
    (quotation and alteration omitted). Because the petitioners in Koons received
    sentences “based on” mandatory minimums and substantial assistance to the
    2
    Case: 16-17679    Date Filed: 01/03/2019   Page: 3 of 3
    Government, and not on Guidelines ranges that subsequently were lowered by the
    Sentencing Commission, the petitioners did not qualify for reduced sentences
    under § 3582(c)(2). Id.
    Koons is dispositive of Sawyer’s appeal. Like the petitioners in Koons,
    Sawyer’s sentence was based on mandatory minimums and substantial assistance
    to the Government. The Guidelines ranges for Sawyer’s drug offenses, which
    subsequently have been lowered by the Sentencing Commission, “play[ed] no
    relevant part in the judge’s determination of [Sawyer’s] ultimate sentence.” Id.
    Consequently, Sawyer is not eligible for a reduced sentence under § 3582(c)(2).
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-17679

Filed Date: 1/3/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/3/2019