USA v. Chedrick Crummie, No. 12-14290 (11th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-14290 Date Filed: 04/23/2013 Page: 1 of 4 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 12-14290 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:93-cr-00252-UU-4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CHEDRICK CRUMMIE, a.k.a. Shatrack, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (April 23, 2013) Case: 12-14290 Date Filed: 04/23/2013 Page: 2 of 4 Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Appellant Chedrick Crummie, a federal prisoner proceeding with counsel, appeals the district court s order granting his motion to reduce sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), and reducing his sentence to a term of 360 months imprisonment. Crummie argues that the court erred by treating the Guidelines as advisory and sentencing Crummie to a term that was greater than his amended guideline range of 262 to 327 months imprisonment that resulted from the application of Amendment 750. We review de novo a district court s legal conclusions on the scope of its authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Jones, 548 F.3d 1366, 1368 (11th Cir. 2008). A district court s decision to grant or deny a sentence reduction is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id. at n.1. A district court may modify a sentence if the defendant 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 motion for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2), a district court must engage in a two-step analysis. United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780 (11th Cir. 2000). First, the court must determine the sentence it would have imposed, given the defendant s amended guideline range and holding all other 2 Case: 12-14290 Date Filed: 04/23/2013 Page: 3 of 4 guideline findings made at the original sentencing hearing constant. Id. Second, the court must consider the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and then determine, in its discretion, whether to reduce the defendant s sentence. Id. at 781; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(B)(i)). Under the second step, the district court must consider the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), as well as public safety considerations, and may consider the defendant s post-sentencing conduct, in evaluating whether a reduction in the defendant s sentence is warranted and the extent of any such reduction. United States v. Williams, 557 F.3d 1254, 1256 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(B)). We conclude from the record that the district court neither lacked the authority to sentence Crummie to a term above the modified sentencing range nor abused its discretion in doing so. The district court was required, after recalculating Crummie s sentence under the amended guidelines, to determine the extent to which his sentence should be reduced if at all in consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, as well as other concerns. See generally Williams, 557 F.3d at 1256. The record indicates that the district court appropriately considered the § 3553(a) factors, giving particular consideration to the seriousness of the offense, in determining that only a reduction to a term above the modified guideline range was appropriate. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion, and we affirm its order. 3 Case: 12-14290 Date Filed: 04/23/2013 AFFIRMED. 4 Page: 4 of 4