United States v. Charles Thomas O'Neil ( 2016 )

Case: 15-14627 Date Filed: 12/09/2016 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-14627
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:09-cr-80105-KLR-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHARLES THOMAS O'NEIL,
a.k.a. Charles T. O'Neil,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(December 9, 2016)
Case: 15-14627 Date Filed: 12/09/2016 Page: 2 of 4
Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Charles O’Neil appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a
sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 to the
Sentencing Guidelines. On appeal, O’Neil contends that the district court erred by
failing to calculate his amended guideline range and then failing to explain its
reasons for denying him a sentence reduction. O’Neil adds that the district court,
in denying his motion, specifically failed to consider his post-sentencing
rehabilitation, as well as his low likelihood of recidivism.
After a review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable case law,
we affirm.
A district court must engage in a two-step analysis when considering a
motion for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Bravo,
203 F.3d 778, 780 (11th Cir. 2000). First, the court must calculate the offender’s
amended guideline range. Id. Second, the court must determine, in its discretion,
whether to reduce the defendant’s sentence and, if so, to what extent. Id. at 781.
In exercising that discretion, the court must consider the § 3553(a) factors. Id.;
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(B)(i)). When imposing a sentence, a district
2
Case: 15-14627 Date Filed: 12/09/2016 Page: 3 of 4
court shall consider, among other factors: (1) the nature and circumstances of the
offense; (2) the history and characteristics of the defendant; (3) the need for the
sentence “to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law,
and to provide just punishment”; (4) the need for adequate deterrence; (5) the need
to protect the public from further crimes; (6) the guideline range; and (7) any
pertinent policy statement from the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(4)(A), (a)(5). The court also must consider the nature and
seriousness of any danger a reduction poses to persons or to the community, and
may consider a defendant’s post-sentencing conduct. United States v. Williams,
557 F.3d 1254, 1256 (11th Cir. 2009); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10,
comment. (n.1(B)((ii)-(iii)).
Nevertheless, a district court need not “articulate specifically the
applicability -- if any -- of each of the section 3553(a) factors, as long as the record
demonstrates that the pertinent factors were taken into account by the district
court.” United States v. Eggersdorf, 126 F.3d 1318, 1322 (11th Cir. 1997). In
Eggersdorf, this Court deemed sufficient the district court’s order in which it stated
that it had reviewed the § 3582(c)(2) motion, the government’s response, the
record, and was “otherwise duly advised.” Id. at 1322-23. We further noted that
the § 3582(c)(2) motion and response had discussed specific elements that were
relevant to the § 3553(a) factors.
3
Case: 15-14627 Date Filed: 12/09/2016 Page: 4 of 4
The district court did not abuse its discretion. First, the Court adopted the
government’s response to O’Neil’s motion, such that the Court adopted the
government’s amended guideline calculation. Moreover, O’Neil does not dispute
that the district court correctly calculated his amended guideline range. Second,
the district court, by adopting the government’s response, adequately placed on the
record its reasons for denying O’Neil’s § 3582(c)(2) motion: O’Neil’s criminal
history and his stated intention to fund his retirement by drug trafficking
outweighed his post-sentencing conduct.
AFFIRMED.
4