UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7528
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO GERMAINE JOHNSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (4:02-cr-00579-CWH-1)
Submitted: January 29, 2013 Decided: February 15, 2013
Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Antonio Germaine Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina;
William E. Day, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Germaine Johnson appeals the district court’s
order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). Under § 3582(c)(2), the district
court may modify the term of imprisonment “of a defendant who
has been sentenced . . . based on a sentencing [Guidelines]
range that has subsequently been lowered,” if the amendment is
listed in the Guidelines as retroactively applicable. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2); see also U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 1B1.10(c), p.s. (2012).
Amendment 750 to the Guidelines lowered the offense
levels for crimes involving certain quantities of crack cocaine
and is retroactive. See USSG §§ 1B1.10(c); USSG App. C Amend.
750. However, even if a defendant qualifies for a sentence
reduction based on a Guidelines amendment, the decision to grant
such a modification is subject to the discretion of the court.
See USSG § 1B1.10, cmt. (backg’d); cf. United States v. Munn,
595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010) (applying abuse of discretion
standard to review of order granting or denying a § 3582(c)(2)
motion). “A district court abuses its discretion if it fails
adequately to take into account judicially recognized factors
constraining its exercise, or if it bases its exercise of
discretion on an erroneous factual or legal premise.” DIRECTV,
2
Inc. v. Rawlins, 523 F.3d 318, 323 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Here, the district court concluded that Johnson, whose
original base offense level was thirty-eight, did not qualify
for a reduction under Amendment 750 because he was held
accountable for more than 4.5 kilograms of crack. However,
Amendment 750 increased from 4.5 kilograms to 8.4 kilograms the
minimum quantity of crack required to qualify for a base offense
level of thirty-eight. Under Amendment 750, the 4.995 kilograms
of crack for which Johnson was held accountable, combined with
the 21,637.9 grams of cocaine powder for which he also was held
responsible, converted to an equivalent of 22,164.58 kilograms
of marijuana, lowering his base offense level from thirty-eight
to thirty-six and his total offense level from forty to thirty-
eight. This reduced Johnson’s Guidelines range from 360-months-
to-life imprisonment to 324-months-to-405-months’ imprisonment.
USSG § 2D1.1(c)(2); see also USSG ch. 5, pt. A (sentencing
table). The district court’s denial of Johnson’s § 3582 motion
based on the erroneous conclusion that Amendment 750 did not
reduce Johnson’s Guidelines range amounted to an abuse of
discretion.
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and
remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
4