United States v. Scott

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7466
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
SHANNON VONTREAL SCOTT,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (4:05-cr-00078-FL-1)
Submitted: March 14, 2011 Decided: April 7, 2011
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Shannon Vontreal Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-
Parker, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shannon Vontreal Scott appeals from the district
court’s order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion
for reduction of sentence based upon the 2007 and 2008 crack
cocaine amendments to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
(“USSG”) (2006). The district court granted the motion,
reducing Scott’s sentence by one month. Scott filed a timely
notice of appeal, and he argues that the district court should
have reduced his sentence below his Guidelines range by the same
percentage it departed below his original range. We affirm.
We review an order granting or denying a § 3582(c)(2)
motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d
183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010). A district court abuses its
discretion if it fails or refuses to exercise discretion, or if
it relies on an erroneous factual or legal premise. DIRECTV,
Inc. v. Rawlins, 523 F.3d 318, 323 (4th Cir. 2008) (citing
James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 1993)).
Under § 3582(c)(2), the district court may modify the
term of imprisonment “of a defendant who has been sentenced
. . . based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been
lowered,” if the amendment is listed in the Guidelines as
retroactively applicable. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); see also USSG
§ 1B1.10(c), p.s. (2010). Amendment 706 of the Guidelines
lowered the offense levels for drug offenses involving certain
2
amounts of crack cocaine. Under Amendment 706, a defendant
whose offense of conviction involved crack cocaine is eligible
for a reduced sentence only if the Amendment lowers his
applicable Guidelines range. United States v. Lindsey, 556 F.3d
238, 244 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 182 (2009); see
also USSG § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B), p.s. “[T]he decision about
whether to reduce a sentence is discretionary on the part of the
district court.” United States v. Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 200
(4th Cir. 2010).
The Guidelines provide that, where the original term
of imprisonment imposed was below a defendant’s Guidelines
range, “a reduction comparably less than the amended guideline
range” may be appropriate following a successful 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) motion. USSG § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B). In United
States v. Fennell, 592 F.3d 506 (4th Cir. 2010), we found that
the district court committed reversible procedural error where
it believed it was required to depart from a defendant’s amended
Guidelines range using the same methodology with which it
departed from the original Guidelines range. Id. at 509. Here,
there is no evidence that the district court believed it lacked
authority to calculate the departure using a different method.
Accordingly we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral arguments because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4