US v. Tony Daniels, No. 15-7188 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7188 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TONY TERRAIL DANIELS, a/k/a Two Tone, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:10-cr-00327-H-2) Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: January 21, 2016 Before KING, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tony Terrail Daniels, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tony granting Terrail his 18 Daniels U.S.C. appeals the § 3582(c)(2) district (2012) sentence reduction under Amendment 782. * court’s motion order seeking a Because we conclude that the district court erred in calculating Daniels’ amended Guidelines range, we vacate and remand to the district court for further proceedings. “We review a district court’s decision to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion and its ruling as to the scope of its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2) de novo.” United States v. Mann, 709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 2013). are obliged court’s to accord interpretation substantial of its own deference to judgment.” (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). a Id. “We district at 305 A district court abuses its discretion, however, “when it . . . relies on erroneous law.” factual or legal premises, or commits an error of United States v. Briley, 770 F.3d 267, 276 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1844 (2015). Under § 3582(c)(2), a district court may reduce the term of imprisonment “of a defendant who has been sentenced . . . based * Although the district court granted Daniels’ § 3582 motion, the reduction granted by the court was less than the reduction sought by Daniels. 2 on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Thus, “[e]ligibility for consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is triggered only by an amendment listed in subsection (d) that lowers the Guidelines applicable Manual determining § guideline range.” 1B1.10, and whether, p.s., what to cmt. U.S. n.1(A) extent, a Sentencing (2014). reduction “In in the defendant’s term of imprisonment . . . is warranted, the court [must] determine the amended guideline range that would have been applicable . . . if the [relevant] amendment[] . . . had been in effect at the time the defendant was sentenced.” USSG § 1B1.10(b)(1), p.s. Initially, we conclude that the court correctly determined that Daniels is eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782, which lowered the base offense levels applicable to drug trafficking offenses. See USSG App. C Amend. 782. Daniels’ Guidelines range after the application of Amendment 782 is 108 to 135 months’ imprisonment. The court, however, calculated an amended Guidelines range of 120 to 135 months’ imprisonment and reduced Daniels’ sentence to 120 months. The court originally sentenced Daniels after the effective date of the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA). Accordingly, the statutory minimum sentence for Daniels’ drug offense is 5 years’ imprisonment, not 10. Compare 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) (2012), 3 with 21 States, U.S.C. 132 S. § 841(b)(1)(A) Ct. 2321, (2006); 2335-36 see Dorsey (2012) v. (holding United that FSA applies to defendants sentenced after effective date of August 3, 2010). The court, therefore, erred in determining that the bottom Daniels’ of amended Guidelines range was 120 imprisonment, rather than 108 months’ imprisonment. months’ See USSG § 5G1.1(c)(2). Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s judgment and remand so that the court may reconsider the extent of Daniels’ sentence reduction Guidelines range. facts and materials legal before under the properly calculated amended We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the 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.
