United States v. Eric Darnel Taylor , 353 F. App'x 275 ( 2009 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
NOVEMBER 17, 2009
No. 09-13310 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 97-00128-CR-3-RV
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ERIC DARNEL TAYLOR,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(November 17, 2009)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, HULL and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Eric Darnel Taylor appeals his 270-month sentence imposed by
the district court after granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his
sentence. First, he contends that the district court sentenced him without
adequately considering the factors in § 3553(a), and failed to give an adequate
explanation for the sentence it imposed. Second, he contends that his sentence was
substantively unreasonable under the factors in § 3553(a).
“We review a district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence pursuant
to [18 U.S.C.] § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion.” United States v. White, 305
F.3d 1264, 1267 (11th Cir. 2002). A district court may modify a term of
imprisonment “in the case of a defendant who has been 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).
When considering a § 3582(c)(2) motion, a district court must engage in a
two-part analysis. United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780 (11th Cir. 2000).
“Initially, the court must recalculate the sentence under the amended guidelines,
first determining a new base level by substituting the amended guideline range for
the originally applied guideline range, and then using that new base level to
determine what ultimate sentence it would have imposed.” Id. Next, the court
must decide, in light of the § 3553(a) factors and in its discretion, whether it will
impose a new sentence under the recalculated guideline range or retain the original
2
sentence. Id. at 781. When considering whether and to what extent a reduction is
warranted, the district court shall consider the § 3553(a) factors and public safety
concerns, and it may consider the defendant’s post-sentencing conduct. U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(B)). “[A] district court commits no reversible error by
failing to articulate specifically the applicability–if any–of each of the section
3553(a) factors, as long as the record demonstrates that the pertinent factors were
taken into account by the district court.” United States v. Eggersdorf, 126 F.3d
1318, 1322 (11th Cir. 1997).
Based on a review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we hold that the
district court adequately considered the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),
and provided an adequate explanation for the sentence it imposed on Taylor. We
also hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in reducing Taylor’s
sentence to 270 months’ imprisonment. Accordingly, we affirm Taylor’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.
3