United States v. Jemel Stone

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-11536 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APRIL 16, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 00-00176-CR-4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JEMEL STONE,
a.k.a. Satin Stone,
a.k.a. Teddy Blaze,
a.k.a. Satin Marshall,
a.k.a. Derrick Volt,
a.k.a. John Hatchet,
a.k.a. Freddie Reese,
a.k.a. B,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
_________________________
(April 16, 2009)
Before BIRCH, DUBINA and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Jemel Stone, pro se, appeals the denial of his motion for a reduced
sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 706 to the U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines. On appeal, Stone argues that the district court abused its
discretion by denying him a sentence reduction because the court wrongly
considered his juvenile offenses and his post-conviction disciplinary infractions.
We review a district court’s denial of a defendant’s § 3582(c)(2) motion for
an abuse of discretion. United States v. Vautier, 144 F.3d 756, 759 n.3 (11th Cir.
1998). “We review de novo a district court’s conclusions about the scope of its
legal authority under § 3582(c)(2).” United States v. James, 548 F.3d 983, 984
(11th Cir. 2008).
Under § 3582(c)(2), a district court has discretion to reduce the term of
imprisonment of an already incarcerated defendant when that defendant’s sentence
was based on a sentencing range that subsequently has been lowered by the U.S.
Sentencing Commission. United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780 (11th Cir.
2000). In evaluating whether a reduction in the defendant’s sentence is warranted,
the district court must first recalculate the defendant’s guideline range under the
amended guidelines, and then must consider the sentencing factors listed in
2
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id. at 780-81; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(B)) (2008).
The district court also may consider the defendant’s post-sentencing conduct.
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(B)(iii)).
Section 3553(a) provides that the court must evaluate, inter alia, the nature
and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant,
and the need for the sentence imposed. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). While the court must
undertake this two-step analysis, its decision whether to reduce the defendant’s
sentence is discretionary. Vautier, 144 F.3d at 760. We do not require a district
court to make specific findings explaining its decision not to resentence a
defendant, so long as the court clearly considered the factors listed in § 3553(a)
and set forth adequate reasons for its refusal to modify the original sentence.
United States v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1254, 1255 (11th Cir. 1997).
Here, the record demonstrates that the district court correctly recalculated
Stone’s amended guideline range and then properly considered the § 3553(a)
factors and Stone’s post-sentencing conduct. In exercising its discretion not to
reduce Stone’s sentence, the court adequately explained its reasons for denying
Stone’s § 3582(c)(2) motion. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not
abuse its discretion when it denied Stone’s motion. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s order denying the motion for a reduced sentence.
3
AFFIRMED.
4