United States v. Tony Daniels

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7188
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TONY TERRAIL DANIELS, a/k/a Two Tone,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:10-cr-00327-H-2)
Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: January 21, 2016
Before KING, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tony Terrail Daniels, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tony Terrail Daniels appeals the district court’s order
granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion seeking a
sentence reduction under Amendment 782. * Because we conclude
that the district court erred in calculating Daniels’ amended
Guidelines range, we vacate and remand to the district court for
further proceedings.
“We review a district court’s decision to reduce a sentence
under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion and its ruling as to
the scope of its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2) de novo.”
United States v. Mann, 709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 2013). “We
are obliged to accord substantial deference to a district
court’s interpretation of its own judgment.” Id. at 305(brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). A district
court abuses its discretion, however, “when it . . . relies on
erroneous factual or legal premises, or commits an error of
law.” United States v. Briley, 770 F.3d 267, 276 (4th Cir.
2014) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 135 S.
Ct. 1844 (2015).
Under § 3582(c)(2), a district court may reduce the term of
imprisonment “of a defendant who has been sentenced . . . based
* Although the district court granted Daniels’ § 3582
motion, the reduction granted by the court was less than the
reduction sought by Daniels.
2
on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the
Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Thus,
“[e]ligibility for consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is
triggered only by an amendment listed in subsection (d) that
lowers the applicable guideline range.” U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10, p.s., cmt. n.1(A) (2014). “In
determining whether, and to what extent, a reduction in the
defendant’s term of imprisonment . . . is warranted, the court
[must] determine the amended guideline range that would have
been applicable . . . if the [relevant] amendment[] . . . had
been in effect at the time the defendant was sentenced.” USSG
§ 1B1.10(b)(1), p.s.
Initially, we conclude that the court correctly determined
that Daniels is eligible for a sentence reduction under
Amendment 782, which lowered the base offense levels applicable
to drug trafficking offenses. See USSG App. C Amend. 782.
Daniels’ Guidelines range after the application of Amendment 782
is 108 to 135 months’ imprisonment. The court, however,
calculated an amended Guidelines range of 120 to 135 months’
imprisonment and reduced Daniels’ sentence to 120 months.
The court originally sentenced Daniels after the effective
date of the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA). Accordingly, the
statutory minimum sentence for Daniels’ drug offense is 5 years’
imprisonment, not 10. Compare 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) (2012),
3
with 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2006); see Dorsey v. United
States, 132 S. Ct. 2321, 2335-36 (2012) (holding that FSA
applies to defendants sentenced after effective date of August
3, 2010). The court, therefore, erred in determining that the
bottom of Daniels’ amended Guidelines range was 120 months’
imprisonment, rather than 108 months’ imprisonment. See USSG
§ 5G1.1(c)(2).
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s judgment and
remand so that the court may reconsider the extent of Daniels’
sentence reduction under the properly calculated amended
Guidelines range. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
4