USA v. Trevin Nunnally, No. 20-14009 (11th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on September 27, 2021.
Download PDF
USCA11 Case: 20-14009 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 02/17/2023 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-14009 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus TREVIN NUNNALLY, a.k.a. Rick, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 5:05-cr-00045-MW-GRJ-1 USCA11 Case: 20-14009 2 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 02/17/2023 Opinion of the Court Page: 2 of 3 20-14009 ____________________ ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before JILL PRYOR, LUCK, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: The Supreme Court vacated and remanded our September 27, 2021, opinion affirming the district court’s denial of Trevin Nunnally’s motion for sentence reduction pursuant to the First Step Act of 2018 for reconsideration in light of Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389 (2022). In our original opinion, we noted that Nunnally acknowledged that the district court did not err in denying his motion because our precedent in United States v. Jones, 962 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2020), required the use of the “as if” framework outlined in that opinion. Specifically, that framework states that any reduction in sentence must be “as if sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act . . . were in effect at the time the covered offense was committed” and means that the court cannot reduce a sentence where the movant received the lowest statutory penalty available to him under the Fair Sentencing Act. Nunnally received a sentence equal to the lowest statutory penalty under the Fair Sentencing Act and so we held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied his motion. USCA11 Case: 20-14009 20-14009 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 02/17/2023 Opinion of the Court Page: 3 of 3 3 After a Supreme Court remand, our court recently held that Concepcion did not abrogate the reasoning in Jones. United States v. Jackson, __ F.4th __, 2023 WL 1501638 (11th Cir. Feb. 3, 2023). Accordingly, we reinstated our prior opinion in Jackson, which followed Jones. Because the binding law in our circuit has not changed, we reinstate our prior decision and affirm the district court’s denial of relief. AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
