UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6122
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FRANK DEMETRIC DICKERSON, JR., a/k/a Frankie Dixon, a/k/a
Frankie D.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:97-cr-00410-JFM-1)
Submitted: September 9, 2016 Decided: October 5, 2016
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit
Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank Demetric Dickerson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Debra Lynn
Dwyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Frank Demetric Dickerson, Jr., appeals the district court’s
order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion to reduce
his sentence based on amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines
following his convictions for conspiracy to distribute cocaine
and cocaine base and possession with intent to distribute 500
grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a),
846 (2012). We vacate the district court’s order and remand for
further proceedings.
We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s order
denying a § 3582(c)(2) motion. United States v. Mann, 709 F.3d
301, 304 (4th Cir. 2013). “We review factual determinations,
like the quantity of drugs attributable to a defendant for
sentencing purposes, for clear error,” and we give “substantial
deference to a district court’s interpretation of its own
judgment.” Id. at 304, 305. A court abuses its discretion
“when it acts arbitrarily or irrationally, fails to consider
judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of
discretion, relies on erroneous factual or legal premises, or
commits an error of law.” United States v. Briley, 770 F.3d
267, 276 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted),
cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1844 (2015).
A criminal defendant is not entitled to a reduction of his
sentence based on a retroactive Sentencing Guidelines amendment
2
as a matter of right; rather, the district court may only modify
the term of imprisonment “of a defendant who has been sentenced
. . . based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been
lowered . . . if such a reduction is consistent with applicable
policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In other words, the amendment must “have
the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline
range.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B),
p.s. (2015). Even if the district court finds a defendant
eligible for a reduction, the court must determine whether, in
its discretion, any part or all of that reduction is warranted.
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010). In this
case, the district court briefly stated that “it appear[s] that
Dickerson is not eligible for a sentence reduction.”
On appeal, Dickerson asserts that he is eligible for a
sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Guidelines, which
reduced by two levels the drug table for most drug offenders.
USSG app. C supp., amend. 782 (2014); see USSG § 1B1.10(d), p.s.
(2015) (applying Amendment 782 retroactively). Dickerson’s
presentence report attributed to him 551 kilograms of cocaine
powder and recommended a base offense level of 38. According to
undisputed portions of the sentencing transcript provided by
Dickerson both in the district court and on appeal, however, the
sentencing court found by a preponderance of the evidence that
3
150 kilograms or more of powder cocaine were attributable to
Dickerson. Under the Guidelines in effect at the time of
Dickerson’s sentence, 150 kilograms or more of cocaine was the
threshold amount for a base offense level of 38; however, under
Amendment 782 and the amended Guidelines, such a drug weight
qualifies for a base offense level of 36. Compare USSG
§ 2D1.1(c)(1) (2000), with USSG § 2D1.1(c)(2) (2015).
Maintaining all other Guidelines adjustments as originally
applied, Amendment 782 has the effect of lowering Dickerson’s
applicable Guidelines range.
By our calculation, the district court erred in finding
Dickerson ineligible for a reduction. Therefore, the court’s
reliance on a factual error in denying relief constitutes an
abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
vacate the district court’s order, and remand for further
proceedings. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
4