United States v. Teeran Gresham ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6197
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TEERAN TYRON GRESHAM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:03-cr-00064-F-1)
Submitted: May 18, 2012 Decided: June 6, 2012
Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Teeran Tyron Gresham, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Teeran Tyron Gresham appeals the district court’s
order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We review a district court’s
ruling on a 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for an abuse of
discretion. United States v. Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 200 (4th
Cir. 2010). We vacate the district court’s order and remand for
further proceedings.
In 2004, Gresham pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement, to one count of possession with intent to distribute
more than fifty grams of cocaine base and more than 500 grams of
cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006), and
possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2006). The
district court sentenced Gresham to consecutive terms of eighty
and sixty months’ imprisonment. The eighty month sentence for
the drug possession conviction represented approximately a
thirty-five percent downward departure from the low end of the
121 to 151 month advisory range set forth by the U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual (“USSG”). The downward departure was based
both on Gresham’s substantial assistance to the Government
pursuant to USSG § 5K1.1, p.s., as well as on mental and
emotional hardships under USSG §§ 5K2.0, p.s., 5H1.3, p.s., and
5H1.6, p.s.
2
In 2009, the district court reduced Gresham’s sentence
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 706 to the
Guidelines. The district court found that Amendment 706 reduced
Gresham’s Guidelines range to 120 to 121 months and granted a
reduction of Gresham’s drug possession sentence from eighty to
seventy-nine months. The low end of Gresham’s Guidelines range
was limited by the mandatory minimum ten year term that was
applicable at the time of Gresham’s sentencing.
In the appealed order, the district court denied
Gresham’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction
based on Amendment 750 to the Guidelines. Amendment 750 revised
the offense levels applicable to certain cocaine base quantities
under USSG § 2D1.1(c). The district court found that Amendment
750 was applicable to Gresham but did not have the effect of
lowering Gresham’s Guidelines range. We agree that Amendment
750 is applicable to Gresham, but find that Amendment 750 did
affect Gresham’s Guidelines range. After the operation of
Amendment 750, Gresham’s offense level and criminal history
category produces a range that is wholly below 120 months’
imprisonment. Thus, pursuant to USSG § 5G1.1(b), Gresham’s
Guidelines “range” is now 120 months. Amendment 750 therefore
had the effect of reducing the high end of Gresham’s Guidelines
range by one month. The district court’s conclusion that
3
Amendment 750 did not provide a basis for considering a further
reduction of Gresham’s sentence was thus erroneous.
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s denial of
Gresham’s motion for a sentence reduction and remand for further
proceedings. On remand, the district court should analyze
Gresham’s motion in light of his revised Guidelines range and
determine whether and to what extent a sentence reduction is
appropriate. * We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
*
The decision of whether to reduce Gresham’s sentence as a
result of the reduction of his Guidelines range is committed to
the discretion of the district court. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
Should the district court grant the motion, it “has discretion
to give a reduction based on the revised sentencing range,
calculated by any reasonable means, so long as it yields a new
sentence congruent with the policy statements of the
Guidelines.” United States v. Fennell, 592 F.3d 506, 510-11
(4th Cir. 2010) (footnote omitted); see also USSG
§ 1B1.10(b)(2)(B), p.s. The court need not employ the same
method of departure used at Gresham’s original sentencing.
Fennell, 592 F.3d at 509.
4