US v. Jeremiah Teague, No. 12-7580 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7580 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JEREMIAH LAMAR TEAGUE, a/k/a Booper, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00022-RLV-CH-4) Submitted: January 24, 2013 Decided: February 6, 2013 Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeremiah Lamar Teague, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Asheville, North Carolina; Thomas A. O Malley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jeremiah denial of a (2006) Lamar sentence pursuant to Guidelines Manual. Teague reduction appeals Amendment under 750 the 18 to district U.S.C. the court s § 3582(c)(2) U.S. Sentencing The district court explained its decision by stating that [d]ue to the statutory mandatory minimum sentence required in this case, there is no change in the guidelines calculations. We disagree. For the reasons explained below, we vacate the court s order and remand for further proceedings. Teague pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine powder and cocaine base (crack), and three substantive responsible, crack. was 36, for sentencing reduced which months. involving purposes, crack. for 1.7 He was held kilograms of His base offense level under the 2007 Guidelines Manual for offense level of 33. VI, counts gave him acceptance of responsibility to a total Teague was in criminal history category an advisory Guidelines range of 235-293 Because Teague was subject to a twenty-year mandatory minimum, the range was narrowed to 240-293 months pursuant to § 5G1.1(c)(2). * USSG In 2009, the district court reviewed Teague s sentence to determine whether he was eligible for a * Teague s sentence was affirmed in August 2010. States v. Teague, 392 F. App x 250 (4th Cir. 2010). 2 United sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) in light of Amendment 706 and concluded that sentencing. In Amendment August 706 2012, the had been applied district at court his reviewed Teague s sentence to determine whether he was eligible for a sentence reduction in light of Amendment 750 and concluded that he was not. We review a district court s decision to grant or deny a § 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion. Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 200 (4th Cir. 2010). United States v. The district court has the authority to modify a defendant s term of imprisonment pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) if the defendant s sentence was based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission Guidelines through amendment. 18 § 1B1.10(a)(1) (2012). a retroactively U.S.C. applicable § 3582(c)(2); see USSG The court abuses its discretion if it relies on an erroneous legal premise. DIRECTV, Inc. v. Rawlins, 523 F.3d 318, 323 (4th Cir. 2008). Amendment 750 reduced Teague s base offense level from 36 to 34. cocaine See USSG § 2D1.1(c)(3) (840 grams to 2.8 kilograms of base). a 3-level reduction responsibility, Teague s revised total Because in he was With criminal history Guidelines range was 188-235 months. statutorily required minimum offense category acceptance level VI, was his of 31. revised Under § 5G1.1(b), when the sentence 3 for is greater than the maximum of required the applicable minimum sentence guideline shall be range, the the statutorily guideline sentence. Therefore, after Amendment 750 was enacted and made retroactive, Teague s Guidelines range became 240 months. 288-month sentence became a sentence above Thus, Teague s the amended Guidelines range, rather than a sentence within the Guidelines range, as it was when the district court imposed it. The district court s conclusion that Amendment 750 does not provide a basis for a sentence reduction was therefore erroneous. Accordingly, we 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. VACATED AND REMANDED 4
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.
