United States v. Larry Williams ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                             ON REHEARING
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 12-7417
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    LARRY DONNELL WILLIAMS, a/k/a “L”,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Statesville.         Richard L.
    Voorhees, District Judge. (5:04-cr-00045-RLV-DCK-1)
    Submitted:   February 12, 2013            Decided:   February 22, 2013
    Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Thomas Norman Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
    Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant.    Amy Elizabeth Ray,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Larry   Donnell    Williams       appeals      the   district     court’s
    orders denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(2) (2006) and his motion for reconsideration. 1
    Under § 3582(c)(2), the district court may modify the term of
    imprisonment “of a defendant who has been sentenced . . . based
    on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered,” if
    the amendment is listed in the federal Sentencing Guidelines as
    retroactively applicable.               
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(2); see also U.S.
    Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(c), p.s. (2012).
    Guidelines     Amendment     750    lowered      the    offense    levels
    for drug crimes involving particular quantities of crack and was
    made       retroactively       applicable      by     Amendment        759.    See     USSG
    § 1B1.10(c); USSG App. C Amends. 750, 759.                               The decision to
    grant such a modification is subject to the discretion of the
    court.       See USSG § 1B1.10 cmt. background; cf. United States v.
    Munn,       
    595 F.3d 183
    ,    186   (4th       Cir.   2010)   (applying    abuse     of
    discretion standard to review of order granting or denying a
    § 3582(c)(2) motion).               “A district court abuses its discretion
    if     it     fails       adequately     to    take       into    account     judicially
    recognized factors constraining its exercise, or if it bases its
    exercise          of   discretion       on    an     erroneous     factual     or    legal
    1
    By separate order, we granted rehearing in this case.
    2
    premise.”       DIRECTV, Inc. v. Rawlins, 
    523 F.3d 318
    , 323 (4th Cir.
    2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).
    Here, the district court denied Williams’ motion based
    on    the    erroneous    conclusion    that,       because     Williams’       original
    sentence       was    a   variance,      it     was     “outside     the        advisory
    [G]uideline system,” and therefore he was not eligible for a
    sentence reduction under Amendment 750.                  However, the fact that
    the sentence a defendant ultimately receives is a variance does
    not        disqualify     an      otherwise         eligible       defendant          from
    consideration for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2).                            See
    USSG       § 1B1.10   cmt.     n.1(A)   (explaining       that     eligibility        for
    sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) “is triggered only by [a
    retroactive      Guidelines      amendment]      that    lowers     the    applicable
    [G]uideline range (i.e., the [G]uideline range that corresponds
    to the offense level and criminal history category determined
    pursuant to § 1B1.1(a), which is determined before consideration
    of    any    departure    provision     in    the     Guidelines    manual       or   any
    variance).”).
    Accordingly,     we   vacate     the     district     court’s      order
    denying      Williams’    § 3582(c)(2)        motion    and    remand     for    further
    proceedings consistent with this opinion. 2                   We dispense with oral
    2
    To the extent that Williams appeals the district court’s
    denial of his motion for reconsideration, the court was without
    (Continued)
    3
    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
    authority to entertain such a motion.   United States v. Goodwyn,
    
    596 F.3d 233
    , 235-36 (4th Cir. 2010).
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-7417A

Judges: King, Duncan, Hamilton

Filed Date: 2/22/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024