United States v. Chedrick Crummie , 517 F. App'x 780 ( 2013 )

Case: 12-14290 Date Filed: 04/23/2013 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-14290
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:93-cr-00252-UU-4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHEDRICK CRUMMIE,
a.k.a. Shatrack,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 23, 2013)
Case: 12-14290 Date Filed: 04/23/2013 Page: 2 of 4
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Chedrick Crummie, a federal prisoner proceeding with counsel,
appeals the district court’s order granting his motion to reduce sentence, 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2), and reducing his sentence to a term of 360 months’ imprisonment.
Crummie argues that the court erred “by treating the Guidelines as advisory” and
sentencing Crummie to a term that was greater than his amended guideline range
of 262 to 327 months’ imprisonment that resulted from the application of
Amendment 750.
We review de novo a district court’s legal conclusions on the scope of its
authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Jones, 548 F.3d 1366,
1368 (11th Cir. 2008). A district court’s decision to grant or deny a sentence
reduction is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id. at n.1.
A district court may modify a sentence if the defendant “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). When
considering a motion for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2), a district court
must engage in a two-step analysis. United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780
(11th Cir. 2000). First, the court must determine the sentence it would have
imposed, given the defendant’s amended guideline range and holding all other
2
Case: 12-14290 Date Filed: 04/23/2013 Page: 3 of 4
guideline findings made at the original sentencing hearing constant. Id. Second,
the court must consider the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and then determine, in
its discretion, whether to reduce the defendant’s sentence. Id. at 781; U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(B)(i)). Under the second step, the district court “must
consider the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), as well as public
safety considerations, and may consider the defendant’s post-sentencing conduct,
in evaluating whether a reduction in the defendant’s sentence is warranted and the
extent of any such reduction.” United States v. Williams, 557 F.3d 1254, 1256
(11th Cir. 2009) (citing U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(B)).
We conclude from the record that the district court neither lacked the
authority to sentence Crummie to a term above the modified sentencing range nor
abused its discretion in doing so. The district court was required, after
recalculating Crummie’s sentence under the amended guidelines, to determine the
extent to which his sentence should be reduced—if at all—in consideration of the
§ 3553(a) factors, as well as other concerns. See generally Williams, 557 F.3d at
1256. The record indicates that the district court appropriately considered the
§ 3553(a) factors, giving particular consideration to the seriousness of the offense,
in determining that only a reduction to a term above the modified guideline range
was appropriate. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion, and we
affirm its order.
3
Case: 12-14290 Date Filed: 04/23/2013 Page: 4 of 4
AFFIRMED.
4