[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-11361 FEBRUARY 9, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 04-00046-CR-4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MAURICE LAWRENCE WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
_________________________
(February 9, 2009)
Before BIRCH, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Maurice Lawrence Williams, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals
the district court’s sentence imposed after granting his motion to reduce sentence
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Williams argues that the district court erred in
lowering his sentence by only three months because the amended guidelines do not
adequately rectify the disparate treatment of individuals sentenced for crack
cocaine crimes. Because the record does not make clear whether the district court
considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors when resentencing Williams, we
VACATE Williams’s sentence and REMAND for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.
I. BACKGROUND
In 2004, Williams was convicted of distribution of crack cocaine (“Count
1”) and carrying a firearm during a drug offense (“Count 4”). R1-35. The district
court calculated Williams’s base offense level at 20. After awarding Williams a
three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, the court arrived at a total
offense level of 17. Williams’s criminal history category was set at IV, yielding a
guideline range of thirty-seven to forty-six months of imprisonment for Count 1,
followed by a consecutive sixty-month sentence for Count 4. The district court
sentenced Williams to forty months of imprisonment for Count 1, followed by the
consecutive sixty-month sentence for Count 4 for a total of one hundred months of
imprisonment. Id. at 2.
2
Williams filed a motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 706. R1-54 at 1-2. In his motion he asserted, inter
alia, that mandatory treatment of the amended provisions of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 and
§ 2D1.1 would violate United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738
(2005), and Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. ___, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007). R1-
54 at 2-3.
On 13 March 2008, the district court reduced Williams’s sentence for Count
1 from forty to thirty-seven months of imprisonment, based on a reduction of his
base offense level from 17 to 15. The sixty-month sentence for Count 4 remained
unchanged. R1-55. The two-level reduction of the base offense level resulted in
an amended guideline range of thirty to thirty-seven months of imprisonment on
Count 1 – down from his original range of thirty-seven to forty-six months.
Williams now appeals the district court’s amended sentence to us.
II. DISCUSSION
“We review a district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on a subsequent change in the sentencing
guidelines, for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Brown, 332 F.3d 1341, 1343
(11th Cir. 2003). “[W]e review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions
regarding the scope of its authority under the Sentencing Guidelines.” United
3
States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1326 (11th Cir. 2008) (quotation marks omitted).
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). This authority is limited to those guideline amendments
listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c) that “have the effect of lowering the defendant’s
applicable guideline range.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) (Nov. 2008).
Amendment 706 is listed in § 1B1.10(c). See U.S.S.G. App. C, amend. 713 (Nov.
2008). Effective 1 November 2007, Amendment 706 adjusted downward by two
levels the base offense level assigned to each threshold quantity of crack cocaine
listed in the Drug Quantity Table in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. See id. Accordingly, a
district court has discretion to reduce the sentence of a defendant whose sentencing
range has been lowered by Amendment 706.
Any sentencing reduction, however, must be “consistent with applicable
policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
The Sentencing Commission’s policy statements direct that a defendant is not
entitled to a full resentencing during § 3582(c)(2) proceedings. U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10(a)(3). The Commission’s policy statement further provides that district
courts are to determine the amended guideline range that would have been
4
applicable to the defendant if the subsequently amended provision had been in
effect at the time the defendant was originally sentenced. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1).
This is achieved by substituting the amended provision for the corresponding
guideline provision that was applied when the defendant was sentenced, while
“leav[ing] all other guideline application decisions unaffected.” Id. Thus, a
district court may not reconsider any of its original sentencing determinations other
than the provision subject to the amendment. United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d
778, 781 (11th Cir. 2000).
After recalculating the guidelines, the district court next must consider the
sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), as well as public safety
considerations, and may consider the defendant’s post-sentencing conduct, in
evaluating whether a reduction in the defendant’s sentence is warranted and the
extent of any such reduction. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. 1(B); see also United
States v. Vautier, 144 F.3d 756, 760 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding that the district court
“must consider the factors listed in § 3553(a)” when determining whether to reduce
a defendant’s original sentence). The district court is not required to 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.” Vautier, 144 F.3d at
762 (citing United States v. Eggersdorf, 126 F.3d 1318, 1322 (11th Cir. 1997)
5
(finding that the district court’s short order, referencing the government’s brief that
enumerated specific elements relevant to a § 3553(a) inquiry, provided sufficient
reasons for the court’s sentence)). In Eggersdorf, we found that the district court’s
statement that it had “reviewed the motions, the Government’s [response], the
record, and [] otherwise [was] duly advised” was sufficient, especially as (1) the
motion set forth the § 3553(a) factors “word for word,” (2) the government’s
response cited facts “relevant to the . . . section 3553(a) inquiry,” and (3) the same
judge presided over both the original sentencing and re-sentencing. Eggersdorf,
126 F.3d at 1322-23. While the district court must undertake this two-step
analysis, its decision whether to reduce the defendant’s sentence, and to what
extent, remains discretionary. See Vautier, 144 F.3d at 760.
Although Williams does not expressly raise the issue on appeal in so many
words, we liberally interpret Williams’s argument as a challenge to the court’s
failure to address the § 3553(a) factors prior to his resentencing. In this case, the
district court summarily granted Williams’s motion for a sentence reduction,
without discussing the § 3553(a) factors, as required under § 1B1.10 and Vautier.
Vautier, 144 F.3d at 762; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. 1(B); R1-55. While we
have considered a district court’s failure to adequately discuss the § 3553(a) factors
only in those cases in which sentencing courts have denied motions for sentence
6
reduction, we see no reason why the same underlying rationale should not extend
to instances in which district courts grant such motions. The commentary to
§ 1B1.10 specifically provides that a sentencing court “shall consider the factors
set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in determining: (I) whether a reduction in the
defendant’s term of imprisonment is warranted; and (II) the extent of such
reduction.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(B)(i)). When considered in
conjunction with our relevant precedent, the guideline’s commandment admits of
little ambiguity. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court was required to
consider the § 3553(a) factors in making its reduction determination and observe
that the record does not allow us to further conclude that the district court did so on
this occasion.
III. CONCLUSION
Williams appeals the district court’s sentence imposed after granting his
motion to reduce sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Because the record is
silent as to whether the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors
when resentencing Williams, we VACATE Williams’s sentence and REMAND for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
7