United States v. Walter Brown, II ( 2018 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6549
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WALTER JAMES BROWN, II, a/k/a J Chill,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:08-cr-00150-D-1)
Submitted: October 26, 2018 Decided: December 3, 2018
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RICHARDSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit
Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Walter James Brown, II, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Walter James Brown, II, appeals the district court’s order denying his motions for
reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). In 2009, Brown pleaded
guilty to possession with intent to distribute more than five grams of cocaine base, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2006), and the district court sentenced him
to 300 months’ imprisonment. Brown’s first § 3582(c)(2) motion sought a reduction
based on Amendment 750 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual app. C, amend. 750 (effective Nov. 1, 2011). His second
motion sought an additional reduction under Amendment 782 to the United States
Sentencing Guidelines. See USSG supp. to app. C, amend. 782 (effective Nov. 1, 2014).
Both amendments apply retroactively, see USSG § 1B1.10, and combine to reduce
Brown’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range to 262 to 327 months’ imprisonment.
In denying Brown’s § 3582(c)(2) motions, the district court applied a higher
Sentencing Guidelines range of 324 to 405 months’ imprisonment. Although the district
court’s order was primarily based on the protection of the public, we find that the district
court’s reliance on an incorrect Guidelines range nevertheless represents an abuse of
discretion. See United States v. Muldrow, 844 F.3d 434, 437 (4th Cir. 2016) (stating
standard of review). We therefore vacate the district court’s order and remand for
consideration of Brown’s § 3582(c)(2) motions using the proper Guidelines range. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED
2