United States v. Hakim Rashid , 698 F. App'x 124 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6649
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HAKIM ABDULAH RASHID, a/k/a Rodney Buchanan,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:10-cr-00941-RBH-1)
Submitted: September 28, 2017 Decided: October 3, 2017
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hakim Abdulah Rashid, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant
United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina; Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Hakim Abdulah Rashid appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the
Sentencing Guidelines, as well as his pro se motion to modify his term of imprisonment
and his petition for a writ of error coram nobis, which also sought relief under
Amendment 782. The district court recognized that Rashid already received the benefit
of Amendment 782 when it granted Rashid’s previous § 3582(c)(2) motion and, thus, it
sua sponte determined that it lacked authority to entertain Rashid’s motions under United
States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235-36 (4th Cir. 2010) (holding that nothing authorizes
a district court to reconsider its order on a § 3582 motion). In United States v. May, 855
F.3d 271 (4th Cir.), pet. for cert. filed, No. 17-142 (U.S. July 24, 2017), however, we
clarified that the prohibition against “§ 3582(c)(2)-based motions for reconsideration” is
not jurisdictional and, thus, is “waived when the government failed to assert it below.”
Id. at 274. Accordingly, the district court did not lack authority to entertain Rashid’s
motions.
We need not remand this matter to the district court, though, because it is clear
that Rashid is entitled to no further relief under Amendment 782. Namely, the district
court sentenced Rashid to the bottom of his amended Guidelines range when it granted
Rashid’s prior § 3582(c)(2) motion. See United States v. Rashid, No. 4:10-cr-00941-
RBH-1 (D.S.C. Jun. 29, 2015). Because Rashid’s original below-Guidelines sentence
was not the result of a Government motion for a substantial assistance reduction, Rashid
is ineligible for any further sentence reduction under Amendment 782. See USSG
2
§ 1B1.10(b)(2) (2017) (providing that a district court may not impose a sentence below
the bottom of an amended Guidelines range unless the original term of imprisonment was
below the original Guidelines range as a result of a Government substantial assistance
motion). Since we may affirm the district court’s order “on any grounds apparent from
the record[,]” United States v. Riley, 856 F.3d 326, 328 (4th Cir.) (internal quotation
marks omitted), pet. for cert. filed, No. 17-5559 (U.S. Aug. 7, 2017), we affirm the
district court’s order on the alternate ground that Rashid is ineligible for a further
sentence reduction under Amendment 782. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3