United States v. Mario Dwayne Murell

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-16422 APRIL 29, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 01-00275-CR-2-JHH-RRA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARIO DWAYNE MURELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
_________________________
(April 29, 2009)
Before DUBINA, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Mario Dwayne Murell, proceeding pro se, appeals the district
court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence based
on Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which reduced the base offense
levels applicable to crack cocaine offenses. On appeal, Murell argues that the
district court abused its discretion in denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion because it
failed to adequately consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and based its
decision on his criminal history as a teenager and young adult. Murell further
argues that the district court incorrectly characterized his previous criminal history.
We review a district court’s decision whether to reduce a defendant’s
sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion. United States v.
Brown, 332 F.3d 1341, 1343 (11th Cir. 2003). A district court may modify a term
of imprisonment “in the case of a defendant who [was] sentenced to a term of
imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by
the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
In considering a defendant’s motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to
§ 3582(c)(2), a district court must engage in a two-part analysis: first, the court
must recalculate the sentence under the amended guidelines; second, the court must
decide whether, in its discretion, it will choose to impose a new sentence or retain
the original sentence. United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780-81 (11th Cir.
2000). The second part of the analysis “should be made in light of the factors
2
listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” Id. at 781.
In the instant case, the district court recalculated the guideline range under
the amended guidelines. Furthermore, the record demonstrates that in denying
Murell’s § 3582(c)(2) motion, the district court considered the § 3553(a) factors,
specifically, the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
characteristics of the defendant, and the need to protect the public. On this record,
we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied
Murell’s motion. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying Murell’s motion for
reduction of sentence.
AFFIRMED.
3