United States v. Jemel Stone

Case: 12-11901 Date Filed: 06/10/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-11901
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:00-cr-00176-BAE-1
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
________________________
(June 10, 2013)
Case: 12-11901 Date Filed: 06/10/2013 Page: 2 of 3
Before BARKETT, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jemel Stone, pro se, appeals the district court’s denials of his motion for a
sentence reduction, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 750 to the
Sentencing Guidelines, and his subsequent motion for reconsideration, following
his conviction for possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). The district court concluded that Stone qualified for a
sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2), but declined to reduce his sentence after
consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, noting that Stone attempted to sell
cocaine base while in possession of a firearm and had a lengthy criminal history.
We review the district court’s denial of a § 3582(c)(2) motion for an abuse
of discretion. United States v. James, 548 F.3d 983, 984 n.1 (11th Cir. 2008).
Under § 3582(c)(2), a court may reduce a defendant’s sentence if the sentence was
based on a sentencing range that has been subsequently lowered by the U.S.
Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In determining whether to
reduce a sentence, the court must first recalculate the defendant’s guidelines range
under the amended guidelines and must then consider whether a reduction is
warranted by the § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780-81
(11th Cir. 2000). The court’s power to reduce a defendant’s sentence is
discretionary. United States v. Vautier, 144 F.3d 756, 760 (11th Cir. 1998).
2
Case: 12-11901 Date Filed: 06/10/2013 Page: 3 of 3
The district court’s order here demonstrates that it properly recalculated
Stone’s amended guidelines range and then properly considered the pertinent
factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offense and Stone’s criminal
history. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court did not abuse its discretion by
refusing to consider Stone’s post-conviction rehabilitation, see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10,
comment. (n.1(B)(iii)) (“The court may consider post-sentencing conduct of the
defendant . . . .” (emphasis added)), and it adequately explained its reasons for
denying Stone’s motions. Accordingly, we find the court did not commit a clear
error in judgment by declining to reduce Stone’s sentence and affirm the denial of
Stone’s motion for a sentence reduction and his motion for reconsideration.
AFFIRMED.
3