USCA11 Case: 20-11878 Date Filed: 04/28/2021 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-11878
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:98-cr-00067-HL-CHW-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT LEE SAWYER,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(April 28, 2021)
Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-11878 Date Filed: 04/28/2021 Page: 2 of 5
Robert Lee Sawyer pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm as a convicted
felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). Sawyer filed a motion to
reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), which the district court granted
in part. Sawyer now appeals the district court’s order. After careful review, we
affirm.
I
A federal jury indicted Robert Sawyer on two counts of possession with
intent to distribute a detectable amount of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and possession of a firearm as a convicted felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). Sawyer pleaded guilty to and was
convicted of possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. The district court,
adopting the PSI’s guidelines-range calculation, sentenced Sawyer to 240 months’
imprisonment.
Sawyer filed a motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582. He
asked the district court to reduce his sentence to 188 months’ imprisonment in an
exercise of its discretion, noting that U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1) permitted
the court to consider Sawyer’s conduct while incarcerated. The district court
granted Sawyer’s motion in part, reducing his sentence to 235 months’
imprisonment. The district court acknowledged both that Sawyer had an
“extensive criminal history” and that he had completed substantial educational
2
USCA11 Case: 20-11878 Date Filed: 04/28/2021 Page: 3 of 5
training while incarcerated. The district court weighed the § 3553(a) factors in
arriving at its conclusion—in particular, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1) and (a)(2)(A)–
(C). Sawyer now appeals. 1
II
A prisoner may move for a reduction of sentence where he “has been
sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has
subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission,” including
amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Amendment
782 to the guidelines retroactively lowered Sawyer’s sentencing range. We agree
with the parties that § 3582(c)(2) permitted Sawyer to seek a reduction of his
sentence.
In considering a § 3582(c)(2) motion, this Court requires a district court to
engage in a two-part analysis. First, the district court must determine “a new base
level by substituting the amended guideline range for the originally applied
guideline range, and then using that new base level to determine what ultimate
sentence it would have imposed.” United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780 (11th
Cir. 2000). During this first step, only the amended guideline is changed, and all
other guideline-application decisions made during the original sentencing remain
1
We review the district court’s decision to grant or deny a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion. United States v. Caraballo-Martinez, 866 F.3d 1233, 1238
(11th Cir. 2017).
3
USCA11 Case: 20-11878 Date Filed: 04/28/2021 Page: 4 of 5
intact. Id. Second, the district court must decide “whether, in its discretion, it will
elect to impose the newly calculated sentence under the amended guidelines or
retain the original sentence.” Id. at 781. For the second step, “the court must
consider the factors listed in § 3553(a) and determine whether or not to reduce the
defendant’s original sentence.” United States v. Vautier, 144 F.3d 756, 760 (11th
Cir. 1998).
Sawyer does not contest the first part of the district court’s analysis, which
concluded that his amended range was 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment. Sawyer
contends only that the district court abused its discretion by reducing his sentence
to 235 months.
The district court did not abuse its discretion. “A district court can
demonstrate that it has considered the § 3553(a) factors by stating which pertinent
factors weigh against granting a sentence reduction, even if it does not present
particular findings for each individual factor.” United States v. Frazier, 823 F.3d
1329, 1333 (11th Cir. 2016). Here, the district court concluded that its revised
sentence “reflects the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
characteristics of the defendant,” see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), and “reflects the
seriousness of the offense and promotes respect for the law, provides just
punishment for the offense, affords adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, and
protects the public from further crimes of [d]efendant,” see 18 U.S.C. § 3553
4
USCA11 Case: 20-11878 Date Filed: 04/28/2021 Page: 5 of 5
(a)(2)(A)–(C). The district court thus demonstrated that it considered the § 3553(a)
factors.
Sawyer’s arguments do not persuade us otherwise. Sawyer contends that the
district court unduly weighed Sawyer’s criminal history and prison disciplinary
history and failed to reduce his sentence in a way that avoided unwarranted
sentencing disparities under § 3553(a)(6). But under our precedent, “[t]he district
court has discretion to determine how much weight to grant to a specific § 3553(a)
factor.” Frazier, 823 F.3d at 1333. The district court identified 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(1) and (a)(2)(A)–(C) as weighing against granting further sentence
reduction. It was under no obligation to afford particular weight to § 3553(a)(6)—
“the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar
records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.” See Frazier, 823 F.3d at
1333. 2 Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
2
Sawyer’s opening brief also argues that the district court insufficiently explained how his
“criminal history dictated a sentence near the top of his revised guidelines range but near the
bottom of his original range,” or how Sawyer’s disciplinary record “impacted its § 3553(a)
evaluation.” Sawyer expressly abandoned those insufficient-explanation arguments in his reply
brief, so we need not consider them.
5