United States v. Walter Devon Grandison

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 09-13622 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APRIL 8, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 01-00008-CR-3-RV
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WALTER DEVON GRANDISON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(April 8, 2010)
Before BLACK, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Walter Grandison, proceeding pro se, appeals the sentence imposed by the
district court following its grant of a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2). On appeal, Grandison argues the district court erred in determining
the extent of his sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) because it failed to consider
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Grandison contends the court’s failure to consider
the § 3553(a) factors indicates it might not have appreciated the extent of its
discretion to impose a lower sentence in light of the relevant factors. After review,
we affirm.1
Here, the district court granted Grandison’s § 3582(c)(2) motion and
sentenced him to 324 months’ imprisonment, the lowest end of the amended
guideline range of 324-365 months’ imprisonment. The district court failed to
explicitly state it considered the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Douglas,
576 F.3d 1216, 1219 (11th Cir. 2009) (“[I]f it is not possible to determine from the
record whether the district court considered the § 3553(a) factors, we must vacate
and remand the case to the district court.” ). Even if the court erred by not
considering the § 3553(a) factors, such error was harmless because the district
court lacked the authority to sentence Grandison below the amended guideline
1
We review a district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2)
for abuse of discretion and its conclusions regarding the scope of its legal authority de novo.
United States v. Williams, 549 F.3d 1337, 1338 (11th Cir. 2008).
2
range sentence. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) (stating that, generally, the court
“shall not reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is less than the minimum of
the amended guideline range”); United States v. Melvin, 556 F.3d 1190, 1193-94
(11th Cir. 2009) (holding the district court erred in sentencing the defendant below
the amended guideline range in violation of the guidelines policy statements), cert.
denied, 129 S. Ct. 2382 (2009).
AFFIRMED.
3