United States v. Chedrick Crummie

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-14957 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 29, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 93-00252-CR-UU
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHEDRICK CRUMMIE,
a.k.a. Shatrack,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(May 29, 2009)
Before BLACK, CARNES and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Chedrick Crummie, through counsel, appeals the sentence imposed by the
district court following its grant of his pro se motion for a reduced sentence,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Crummie’s § 3582(c)(2) motion was based on
Amendment 706 to the Guidelines, which reduced the base offense levels
applicable to crack cocaine offenses. Crummie asserts the district court erred in
determining the extent of his sentence reduction, under § 3582(c)(2), without
considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
A district court’s resolution of a motion under § 3582(c)(2), based on a
subsequent change in the Sentencing Guidelines, is reviewed for abuse of
discretion. See United States v. Brown, 332 F.3d 1341, 1343 (11th Cir. 2003).
When considering a § 3582(c)(2) motion, a district court must engage in a two-part
analysis. “Initially, the court must recalculate the sentence under the amended
guidelines, first determining a new base level by substituting the amended
guideline range for the originally applied guideline range, and then using that new
base level to determine what ultimate sentence it would have imposed.” United
States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780 (11th Cir. 2000). It is apparent from the
resentencing order that the district court calculated Crummie’s amended
Guidelines range.
2
Next, the court must decide, in light of the § 3553(a) factors and in its
discretion, whether it will impose the newly calculated sentence or retain the
original sentence. Id. at 781. While a district court must consider the § 3553(a)
factors in making this determination, it “commits no reversible error by failing to
articulate specifically the applicability—if any—of each of the . . . factors, as long
as the record demonstrates that the pertinent factors were taken into account by the
district court.” United States v. Eggersdorf, 126 F.3d 1318, 1322 (11th Cir. 1997).
There is nothing in the record that indicates the district court took into account the
§ 3553(a) factors when deciding to reduce Crummie’s sentence to the high end of
the amended Guidelines range. Without such information, we lack a meaningful
basis from which we can determine whether the district court abused its discretion
in deciding how much to reduce Crummie’s sentence. See United States v.
Williams, 557 F.3d 1254, 1257 (11th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we vacate the
district court’s order and remand for further consideration and explanation.
VACATED and REMANDED.
3