US v. Nathaniel Maurice Gaffney

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:07-cr-00711-JMC-5 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999100983]. Mailed to: Nathaniel Maurice Gaffney. [13-6017]

Appeal: 13-6017

Doc: 6

Filed: 05/03/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NATHANIEL MAURICE GAFFNEY,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg.
J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (7:07-cr-00711-JMC-5)

Submitted:

April 23, 2013

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

SHEDD,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

May 3, 2013

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.

Nathaniel Maurice Gaffney, Appellant Pro Se.
Jimmie Ewing,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina;
Elizabeth
Jean
Howard,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6017

Doc: 6

Filed: 05/03/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
In 2008, Nathaniel Maurice Gaffney was sentenced to
135 months’ imprisonment following his conviction for conspiracy
to

distribute

and

possess

with

intent

to

distribute

five

kilograms or more of cocaine and fifty grams or more of cocaine
base (“crack”), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 846 (2006).

In

2012, Gaffney filed a motion for reduction in sentence pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006), arguing that U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual App. C, Amends. 750 and 759 (2011), together
with the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (“FSA”), Pub. L. No. 111220, 124 Stat. 2372, reduced his advisory Guidelines range and
his mandatory minimum sentence.
motion.

The district court denied the

For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part, vacate

in part, and remand for further proceedings.
Under § 3582(c)(2), the district court may modify the
term

of

. . .

imprisonment

based

on

a

“of

a

defendant

sentencing

who

has

[Guidelines]

been

range

sentenced
that

has

subsequently been lowered,” if the amendment is listed in the
Guidelines as retroactively applicable.

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2);

see also USSG § 1B1.10(c), p.s. (2012).
qualifies

for

a

sentence

reduction

Even if a defendant

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); United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir.
2

Appeal: 13-6017

Doc: 6

2010).

Filed: 05/03/2013

Pg: 3 of 4

“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.”

of

DIRECTV,

Inc. v. Rawlins, 523 F.3d 318, 323 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Gaffney

argued

in

the

district

court

that

his

Guidelines range was lowered both by Amendment 750 and by the
FSA.

The

required

FSA

to

increased

trigger

the

threshold

certain

quantities

mandatory

minimum

of

crack

sentences.

However, it is only retroactively applicable to defendants who
were

sentenced

after

its

effective

date

of

August

3,

2010.

Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321, 2335 (2012); United
States

v.

Bullard,

645

F.3d

237,

denied, 132 S. Ct. 356 (2011).

246-49

(4th

Cir.),

cert.

Gaffney was sentenced in 2004,

well before the FSA’s effective date.

In any event, in his

informal brief, Gaffney does not challenge the district court’s
conclusion

that

the

mandatory

minimum

appellate

review

of

(providing

that

this

briefs).

For

FSA

did

not

sentence.

these

this
court

lower

Gaffney’s

statutory

Gaffney

forfeited

Therefore,

claim.

See

considers

reasons,

we

4th

only

affirm

the

Cir.

issues

R.

34(b)

raised

district

in

court’s

order to the extent that it concluded that Gaffney’s statutory

3

Appeal: 13-6017

Doc: 6

Filed: 05/03/2013

Pg: 4 of 4

mandatory minimum sentence was not reduced by the FSA and that
he was not eligible for a sentence reduction based on the FSA.
However, the district court denied § 3582(c)(2) relief
without

addressing

Gaffney’s

eligibility

for

a

reduction under Amendment 750 independent of the FSA.
750

to

the

involving

Guidelines
certain

retroactive.
759.

lowered

the

offense

quantities

of

crack

levels
cocaine

sentence
Amendment
for

crimes

and

is

See USSG §§ 1B1.10(c); USSG App. C Amends. 750,

Because we conclude that Gaffney may have been eligible

for such a reduction, we vacate the district court’s order in
part and remand for further proceedings to enable the district
court to determine if Gaffney is eligible and, if so, whether to
grant such a reduction.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED

4