USCA11 Case: 20-13169 Date Filed: 06/14/2021 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-13169
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:08-cr-20190-JEM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
THOMAS JOHNSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(June 14, 2021)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, NEWSOM and ANDERSON, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-13169 Date Filed: 06/14/2021 Page: 2 of 4
Thomas Johnson appeals the partial denial of his motion for a sentence
reduction based on the First Step Act of 2018. Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404(b), 132
Stat. 5194, 5222. Two years after the President commuted Johnson’s sentence of
imprisonment from 360 months to 240 months, Johnson moved, without success,
for a further reduction of his sentence of imprisonment and his term of supervised
release. On appeal, we vacated the denial of relief because it was unclear whether
the district court understood that it could reduce Johnson’s sentence below his
revised advisory guideline range and remanded for further proceedings. United
States v. Jones, 962 F.3d 1290, 1293, 1296, 1305 (11th Cir. 2020). On remand, the
district court granted Johnson’s request to reduce his term of supervised release
from eight years to six years, but it declined to reduce Johnson’s sentence of
imprisonment, 18 U.S.C. § 3553. We affirm.
We review the denial of a motion to reduce a sentence based on the First
Step Act for abuse of discretion. Jones, 962 F.3d at 1296. “A district court abuses
its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures
in making the determination, or makes findings of fact that are clearly erroneous.”
United States v. Khan, 794 F.3d 1288, 1293 (11th Cir. 2015) (quoting Klay v.
United Healthgroup, Inc., 376 F.3d 1092, 1096 (11th Cir. 2004)). Because abuse of
discretion is a deferential standard of review, the district court has a range of
choice that we will not disturb even though we might have made a different
2
USCA11 Case: 20-13169 Date Filed: 06/14/2021 Page: 3 of 4
decision. United States v. Riley, 995 F.3d 1272, 1278 (11th Cir. 2021).
The district court did not abuse its discretion. It understood that it had the
authority under the First Step Act to reduce Johnson’s sentence of imprisonment
and chose to do so in part. Johnson argues that the district court should have
considered the statutory sentencing factors, but the record shows that it did so.
As in United States v. Potts, 997 F.3d 1142, 1145 (11th Cir. 2021), the
district court decided that the sentencing factors did not support a reduction of
Johnson’s sentence of imprisonment. The district court reasonably determined that
“the facts of [Johnson’s] case [did] not merit a revised sentence below . . . 240
months” in the light of the “amount of crack cocaine [he] was convicted of
possessing,” “the danger drug trafficking brings to the community,” and his status
as a career offender for accumulating 17 convictions in 12 years that included
numerous controlled substance offenses. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Even so, the
district court decided “that Johnson’s conduct while imprisoned justifie[d]
reducing his term of supervised release from eight years to six.” Johnson argues
that the district court should have given more weight to his rehabilitation and
positive prison record, but “[t]he weight given to any specific § 3553(a) factor is
left to the district court’s discretion,” United States v. Fox, 926 F.3d 1275, 1282
(11th Cir. 2019). We cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in
reducing only Johnson’s term of supervised release and leaving undisturbed his
3
USCA11 Case: 20-13169 Date Filed: 06/14/2021 Page: 4 of 4
sentence of imprisonment.
AFFIRMED.
4