US v. Antonio Johnson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:02-cr-00579-CWH-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999044889]. Mailed to: Antonio Germaine Johnson. [12-7528]

Appeal: 12-7528

Doc: 10

Filed: 02/15/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7528

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO GERMAINE JOHNSON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (4:02-cr-00579-CWH-1)

Submitted:

January 29, 2013

Decided:

February 15, 2013

Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antonio Germaine Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina;
William E. Day, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-7528

Doc: 10

Filed: 02/15/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Antonio Germaine Johnson appeals the district court’s
order

denying

his

motion

for

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006).

reduction

of

sentence

under

18

Under § 3582(c)(2), the district

court may modify the term of imprisonment “of a defendant who
has been sentenced . . . based on a sentencing [Guidelines]
range that has subsequently been lowered,” if the amendment is
listed in the Guidelines as retroactively applicable.
§

3582(c)(2);

see

also

U.S.

Sentencing

18 U.S.C.

Guidelines

Manual

§ 1B1.10(c), p.s. (2012).
Amendment 750 to the Guidelines lowered the offense
levels for crimes involving certain quantities of crack cocaine
and is retroactive.
750.

See USSG §§ 1B1.10(c); USSG App. C Amend.

However, even if a defendant qualifies for a sentence

reduction based on a Guidelines amendment, the decision to grant
such a modification is subject to the discretion of the court.
See USSG § 1B1.10, cmt. (backg’d); cf. United States v. Munn,
595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010) (applying abuse of discretion
standard to review of order granting or denying a § 3582(c)(2)
motion).

“A district court abuses its discretion if it fails

adequately to take into account judicially recognized factors
constraining

its

exercise,

or

if

it

bases

its

exercise

discretion on an erroneous factual or legal premise.”

2

of

DIRECTV,

Appeal: 12-7528

Doc: 10

Filed: 02/15/2013

Pg: 3 of 4

Inc. v. Rawlins, 523 F.3d 318, 323 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Here, the district court concluded that Johnson, whose
original base offense level was thirty-eight, did not qualify
for

a

reduction

accountable

for

under
more

Amendment

than

4.5

750

because

kilograms

of

he

crack.

was

held

However,

Amendment 750 increased from 4.5 kilograms to 8.4 kilograms the
minimum quantity of crack required to qualify for a base offense
level of thirty-eight.

Under Amendment 750, the 4.995 kilograms

of crack for which Johnson was held accountable, combined with
the 21,637.9 grams of cocaine powder for which he also was held
responsible, converted to an equivalent of 22,164.58 kilograms
of marijuana, lowering his base offense level from thirty-eight
to thirty-six and his total offense level from forty to thirtyeight.

This reduced Johnson’s Guidelines range from 360-months-

to-life imprisonment to 324-months-to-405-months’ imprisonment.
USSG

§ 2D1.1(c)(2);

table).

see

also

USSG

ch.

5,

pt.

A

(sentencing

The district court’s denial of Johnson’s § 3582 motion

based on the erroneous conclusion that Amendment 750 did not
reduce

Johnson’s

Guidelines

range

amounted

to

an

abuse

of

discretion.
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and
remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because
3

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 12-7528

Doc: 10

contentions

are

Filed: 02/15/2013

adequately

Pg: 4 of 4

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

4