Case: 15-10377 Date Filed: 06/14/2016 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-10377
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:91-cr-00413-WPD-13
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JUAN CARLOS FERNANDEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(June 14, 2016)
Before HULL, MARCUS, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-10377 Date Filed: 06/14/2016 Page: 2 of 3
Juan Carlos Fernandez, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. He challenges the
sentencing court’s conclusions as to the quantity of drugs that he was accountable
for and asserts that the district court erred when it determined that he was ineligible
for a sentence reduction.
In a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding, we review de novo the district court’s legal
conclusions regarding the scope of its authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
United States v. Jones, 548 F.3d 1366, 1368 (11th Cir. 2008). Once it is
established that § 3582 applies, a district court’s decision to grant or deny a
sentence reduction is reviewed only for abuse of discretion. United States v.
Hamilton, 715 F.3d 328, 337 n.8 (11th Cir. 2013). The district court abuses its
discretion if it fails to apply the proper legal standard or to follow proper
procedures in making its determination. United States v. Jules, 595 F.3d 1239,
1241-42 (11th Cir. 2010).
When considering a § 3582(c)(2) motion, the district court must first
recalculate the guidelines range under the amended guidelines. United States v.
Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780 (11th Cir. 2000). If the defendant is eligible for a
sentencing reduction, the district court has discretion to impose the newly
calculated sentence under the amended guidelines or retain the original sentence.
2
Case: 15-10377 Date Filed: 06/14/2016 Page: 3 of 3
Id. at 781. In doing so, the district court should first consider the statutory factors
listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id.; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(B)(i))
(providing that the court “shall consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)” in determining whether the reduction is warranted and the extent of the
reduction). Although the district court must undertake this two-step analysis, the
district court retains its discretion not to reduce the sentence. United States v.
Vautier, 144 F.3d 756, 760 (11th Cir. 1998).
The district court’s denial of Fernandez’s § 3582(c)(2) motion was within its
discretion because it considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and determined
that Fernandez’s sentence was necessary to protect the public, promote respect for
the law, and serve as a deterrent. See Vautier, 144 F.3d at 760. Accordingly, we
affirm the denial of Fernandez’s motion to reduce his sentence.
AFFIRMED.
3
United States v. Juan Carlos Fernandez
Combined Opinion