UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7537
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KARRI ADKINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,
District Judge. (3:05-cr-00084-1)
Submitted: February 7, 2012 Decided: February 21, 2012
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Karri Adkins, Appellant Pro Se. Gary L. Call, Monica Lynn
Dillon, John J. Frail, Steven Loew, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Karri Adkins appeals the district court’s denial of
the motion to reduce her sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
(2006). 1 In denying the motion, the district court stated that
“[t]he defendant received a two-point reduction in 2008, so the
new crack cocaine guidelines do not reduce her sentence.” At
the time of the motion, Adkins’s base offense level under the
Sentencing Guidelines (determined by the quantity of crack
cocaine attributable to her) was twenty-six. 2
Pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10
(2011), when a defendant’s applicable Guidelines range has been
lowered by an amendment to the Guidelines, the district court
may reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment pursuant to
§ 3582. This court reviews 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 relies on an erroneous factual or
1
Adkins was originally sentenced to 108 months’
imprisonment after pleading guilty to distribution of cocaine
base (“crack cocaine”), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
(2006). In 2008, the district court reduced her sentence to
eighty-seven months’ imprisonment pursuant to Amendment 706 to
the Sentencing Guidelines.
2
The sentence reduction in 2008 resulted in an amended
offense level of twenty-eight under the Guidelines, which
included a two-level enhancement for Adkins’ use of a firearm.
2
legal premise. DIRECTV, Inc. v. Rawlins, 523 F.3d 318, 323 (4th
Cir. 2008).
In the presentence investigation report (“PSR”),
Adkins was held responsible for 31.59 grams of crack cocaine.
At sentencing, the district court purported to adopt the PSR.
It determined, however, that the drug amount in the PSR should
be reduced by approximately seven grams. It nonetheless stated
merely that Adkins was responsible for at least twenty but less
than thirty-five grams of crack cocaine. The precise amount of
crack cocaine for which Adkins was held responsible is thus
ambiguous.
Under the Guidelines as amended pursuant to the Fair
Sentencing Act of 2010, the base offense level for an offender
responsible for twenty grams of crack cocaine is twenty-two, the
base offense level for an offender responsible for at least 22.4
grams of crack cocaine is twenty-four, and the base offense
level for an offender responsible for at least twenty-eight
grams of crack cocaine is twenty-six. USSG § 2D1.1(c)(7)-(9).
It is therefore unclear from the current record whether Adkins
is eligible for a sentence reduction pursuant to the recently-
amended Guidelines. 3 Because the record is insufficient to
3
Amendment 750, which amended the Guidelines in accordance
with the FSA, became retroactive on November 1, 2011. USSG
§ 1B1.10(c) (2011).
3
determine Adkins’ eligibility for a sentence reduction, we
remand with instructions for the district court to make
additional findings as to the amount of crack cocaine
attributable to Adkins and, based on that finding, determine
anew whether Adkins can or should benefit from Amendment 750.
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and
remand for reconsideration of the § 3582 motion. The Clerk is
directed to issue the mandate forthwith. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
4