[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
OCTOBER 19, 2009
No. 08-16631 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 96-00061-CR-DHB-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM CARLISLE HOWARD, JR.,
a.k.a. Will,
a.k.a. Blue,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
_________________________
(October 19, 2009)
Before EDMONDSON, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
William Carlisle Howard, Jr., a pro se federal prisoner convicted of a crack
cocaine offense, appeals the denial of his motion for a reduced sentence pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.
At his original sentencing, Howard received an offense level of 38. The
district court granted Howard a U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b)(1) downward departure on his
criminal history category from III to II. Howard’s resulting guidelines range was
262 to 327 months’ imprisonment; and the district court imposed a 262-month
sentence.
In his section 3582(c)(2) motion, Howard sought a sentence reduction
pursuant to Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which retroactively
reduced the base offense levels applicable to crack cocaine offenses. The district
court reduced Howard’s offense level to 36 under Amendment 706, kept his
criminal history category at III, and calculated an amended guidelines range of 235
to 293 months. But the court granted Howard no sentence reduction because his
original sentence fell within the amended guidelines range and was the product of a
downward departure and because Howard was responsible for a large quantity of
drugs.
2
On appeal, Howard argues that the district court’s amended guidelines’
calculations should have reflected the original downward departure on his criminal
history category. He also argues that the court failed to consider the sentencing
factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We review for an abuse of discretion a district
court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). United
States v. Brown, 332 F.3d 1341, 1343 (11th Cir. 2003).
When a sentencing guideline is amended and given retroactive effect, the
district court, “after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the
extent that they are applicable,” may reduce a previous sentence under the
amendment “if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements
issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); see also U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10(a)(1). Amendment 706 -- which became retroactive on 3 March 2008,
U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 713 (Supp. 1 May 2008) -- reduced by two the base
offense levels in crack cocaine sentences calculated pursuant to the drug quantity
table, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c).
If, as here, an amendment applies to a defendant, a “district court must make
two distinct determinations before deciding whether to reduce a defendant’s
sentence under” section 3582(c)(2). United States v. Vautier, 144 F.3d 756, 760
(11th Cir. 1998). First, the court must determine the sentence it would have
3
imposed, given defendant’s amended guidelines range and keeping constant all
other guideline determinations made at the original sentencing hearing. Id. Then,
the court must consider the factors in section 3553(a) and determine, in its
discretion, whether to reduce defendant’s sentence. Id. The court need not present
particular findings on each section 3553(a) factor as long as the court clearly
considered the factors and set forth adequate reasons for refusing to reduce a
prisoner’s sentence. See United States v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1254, 1256 (11th Cir.
1997).
About the first step, the district court calculated correctly the amended
guidelines range. Howard’s original base offense level of 38 was based on 1,916
grams of crack cocaine; and after Amendment 706, this drug quantity corresponds
to a base offense level of 36. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(2). Howard’s contention
that the district court should have departed to a criminal history category of II is
unavailing: the district court had discretion on whether to impose its previous
departure. See Vautier, 144 F.3d at 761 (explaining that in a section 3582(c)(2)
proceeding, “whether to consider a downward departure in determining what
sentence the court would have imposed under the amended guideline remains
discretionary, and the court is not bound by its earlier decision at the original
4
sentencing to depart downward from the sentencing guidelines range”).1
About the second step, we conclude that the district court adequately
considered the section 3553(a) factors and abused no discretion in refusing to
reduce Howard’s sentence. The court explained why a sentence reduction was
unwarranted: Howard’s original sentence already reflected a downward departure
and he had been held accountable for a large quantity of drugs. That the district
court’s order was short and failed to articulate specifically that it had considered
the section 3553(a) factors is not reversible error. See United States v.
Eggersdorf, 126 F.3d 1318, 1322 (11th Cir. 1997) (explaining that the record must
demonstrate that the district court took the pertinent factors into account). And the
drug amount bore on the nature and circumstances of the offense. 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a)(1).2
Because the district court calculated properly the amended sentencing range,
and the record indicates that the district court considered the section 3553(a)
factors, we conclude that no abuse of discretion occurred.
1
Even if the court had imposed its previous downward departure, Howard’s original 262-
month sentence still would have been within the amended guidelines range of 210 to 262
months.
2
On appeal, Howard points out that the Sentencing Commission determined that a
defendant responsible for less than 4.5 kilograms of crack cocaine is eligible for a sentence
reduction. But whether to grant that reduction remains within the discretion of the district court.
See Vautier, 144 F.3d at 760.
5
AFFIRMED.
6