[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-15735 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar MAY 28, 2009
________________________ THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 04-00010-CR-6
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RICHARD WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
_________________________
(May 28, 2009)
Before BLACK, BARKETT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Richard Williams appeals from the 135-month sentence imposed by the
district court following its denial of his motion for a reduced sentence, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on Amendment 706 to the Guidelines, which
reduced the base offense levels applicable to most crack cocaine offenses. On
appeal, Williams argues the district court abused its discretion because it did not
resentence him at the low end of his amended guideline range, but instead let his
mid-guideline-range sentence remain in effect. After thorough review, we affirm.
“In a proceeding to modify a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), we
review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions regarding the scope of its
authority under the Sentencing Guidelines.” United States v. White, 305 F.3d
1264, 1267 (11th Cir. 2002). We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s
decision whether to reduce a sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). Id.
A district court may modify a term of imprisonment in the case of a
defendant who was sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing
range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). When considering a § 3582(c)(2) motion, a district court
must engage in a two-part analysis. “Initially, the court must recalculate the
sentence under the amended guidelines, first determining 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). Next,
2
the court must decide, in light of the § 3553(a) factors and in its discretion, whether
it will impose the newly calculated sentence or retain the original sentence. Id. at
781.
If the defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction under the first part of the
analysis, the district court must consider the § 3553(a) factors under the second
part of the analysis, regardless of whether it ultimately denies or grants §
3582(c)(2) relief. United States v. Williams, 557 F.3d 1254, 1257 (11th Cir.
2009). Still, the district court need not specifically articulate the applicability of
each factor, “as long as the record as a whole demonstrates that the pertinent
factors were taken into account by the district court.” United States v. Vautier, 144
F.3d 756, 762 (11th Cir. 1998) (quotation omitted).
Here, the district court first calculated Williams’s amended guideline range.
Williams does not challenge the district court’s calculation of his amended
guideline range, but, instead, argues that the district court abused its discretion
during the second step of the analysis, when it determined that a mid-guideline-
range sentence adequately addressed the government’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 motion.
Because the record reflects that the district court took the pertinent § 3553(a)
factors into account, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining
3
not to grant a sentence reduction. See Vautier, 144 F.3d at 762-63. Accordingly,
we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
4