United States v. Antonio Johnson , 510 F. App'x 260 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED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    Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-7528

Citation Numbers: 510 F. App'x 260

Judges: Floyd, Hamilton, Per Curiam, Thacker

Filed Date: 2/15/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023