USCA11 Case: 22-11350 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 02/02/2023 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-11350
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TREMAIN HAMILTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 3:08-cr-00061-LC-EMT-4
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11350 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 02/02/2023 Page: 2 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 22-11350
Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Tremain Hamilton appeals the district court’s denial of his
motion for a reduced sentence under § 404(b) of the First Step Act.
The district court found that he was eligible for a sentence
reduction but declined, in its discretion, to reduce the sentence.
The court stated that it considered “the revised statutory ranges
under the [First Step Act], the Sentencing Guidelines, and the
sentencing factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” Guiding its
discretion, the court relied on the fact that Hamilton already
received a reduced sentence under Amendment 782 of the
Sentencing Guidelines, and “the fact that Defendant’s participation
in the drug conspiracy involved violence, a significant quantity of
drugs, and the involvement of a minor.” These latter facts took on
added importance, the court said, because Hamilton’s record is
“littered with infractions for drugs, illicit monetary transactions,
and unauthorized engagement in sexual acts.”
We review a district court’s decision to deny a sentence
reduction for abuse of discretion. United States v. Russell, 994 F.3d
1230, 1239 (11th Cir. 2021). “A district court abuses its discretion
when it applies an incorrect legal standard or makes a clear error of
judgment.” United States v. Stevens, 997 F.3d 1307, 1312 (11th Cir.
2021).
USCA11 Case: 22-11350 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 02/02/2023 Page: 3 of 4
22-11350 Opinion of the Court 3
The district court ruled on Hamilton’s motion prior to the
Supreme Court’s decision in Concepcion v. United States, 142 S.
Ct. 2389 (2022). That decision held that “the First Step Act requires
district courts to consider intervening changes when parties raise
them.” Id. at 2396. This includes intervening changes in law. Id.
Hamilton argued to the district court that due to a separate
(nonretroactive) change in the First Step Act, his prior conviction
no longer supported a sentencing enhancement under 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(b)(1). Accordingly, if he were sentenced today, he would face
a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years instead of twenty
years. The district court acknowledged this argument but
Eleventh Circuit precedent at the time prohibited consideration of
intervening changes in the law other than those mandated by
sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act when exercising
discretion under § 404(b). See United States v. Taylor, 982 F.3d
1295, 1302 (11th Cir. 2020), abrogated in part by Concepcion, 142
S. Ct. at 2396. The district court’s order accordingly does not
indicate whether the court understood that it was authorized to
reduce the sentence of an otherwise-eligible defendant based on
this intervening change in the law. We therefore vacate the
judgment of the district court and remand this case for further
consideration.
Hamilton also challenges the district court’s finding that
“Defendant’s participation in the drug conspiracy involved
violence” as clearly erroneous. On appeal, the government does
not refer to any record evidence that would support the court’s
USCA11 Case: 22-11350 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 02/02/2023 Page: 4 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 22-11350
conclusion and instead argues that the violent acts of his co-
conspirators should be attributed to Hamilton. But the district
court’s finding was that Hamilton’s participation involved violence
and there is no record evidence of Hamilton’s violence to support
this conclusion. Accordingly, the district court also abused its
discretion by relying on a clearly erroneous fact.
VACATED and REMANDED.