US v. Shahiee Flowers, No. 16-6762 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6762 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHAHIEE JERMAINE FLOWERS, a/k/a Munchie, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00558-MBS-2) Submitted: October 20, 2016 Decided: November 3, 2016 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shahiee Jermaine Flowers, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, John David Rowell, Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Shahiee Jermaine Flowers appeals the district court’s order denying his sentence 18 U.S.C. reduction Guidelines. § 3582(c)(2) under (2012) Amendment 782 motion to seeking the a Sentencing We affirm. “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). A district court abuses its discretion, however, “when it . . . relies on erroneous factual or legal premises, or commits an error of law.” Cir. 2014) United States v. Briley, 770 F.3d 267, 276 (4th (internal § 3582(c)(2), a quotation district marks court may omitted). reduce the Under term of imprisonment “of a defendant who has been sentenced . . . based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In assessing a motion for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction, “[a] court must first determine Sentencing that Guidelines a reduction Manual] is consistent § 1B1.10.” States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010). Dillon with v. [U.S. United Under USSG § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B), a sentence reduction is not authorized if the amendment “does not have the effect guideline range.” of lowering the defendant’s applicable The applicable guideline range is the range 2 “that corresponds category to determined the offense pursuant to level [USSG] and § criminal 1B1.1(a), history which is determined before consideration of any departure provision in the Guidelines n.1(A). Manual or any variance.” USSG § 1B1.10 cmt. The court cannot reduce the sentence under § 3582(c)(2) to a term less than the minimum of the amended guideline range, unless the guideline original range assistance. Guidelines sentence reflect to USSG lowered was lower the offense the defendant’s § 1B1.10(b)(2). the than Amendment levels initial substantial 782 applicable to the to drug offenses by two levels and is retroactively applicable. See USSG § 1B1.10(d) (2015); supp. app. C, amend. 782. At resentencing, in 2010, the district court granted Flowers’ motion for a downward variance and reduced Flowers’ base offense level to reflect cocaine to powder cocaine. applicable Flowers’ guidelines one-to-one ratio of crack While Amendment 782 lowered Flowers’ range, below-Guidelines a the Guidelines sentence could make be clear that proportionally reduced even further only if the original reduction was based on substantial assistance. USSG § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A), (B); id., cmt. n.3 (prohibiting a reduction below the bottom of the amended guideline range even where the original term of imprisonment was based on a downward variance or departure, except for departures based on substantial assistance); USSG App. C, Amend. 759 (2011) 3 (explaining rationale of amendment). at 820-31 advisory). his (holding USSG § 1B1.10 is mandatory, not Because Flowers’ sentence was not reduced to reflect substantial authority that See also Dillon, 560 U.S. to assistance, resentence the Flowers district below the court was amended without guideline range. Accordingly, we affirm that district court’s order. grant Flowers’ motion to clarify issues. We We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 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.
