US v. Tony Daniel

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:10-cr-00327-H-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999739615]. Mailed to: Tony Terrail Daniels FCI BENNETTSVILLE FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 52020 Bennettsville, SC 29512-0000. [15-7188]

Appeal: 15-7188

Doc: 7

Filed: 01/21/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED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Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7188

Doc: 7

Filed: 01/21/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

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

Appeal: 15-7188

Doc: 7

Filed: 01/21/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

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

Appeal: 15-7188

with

Doc: 7

21

States,

Filed: 01/21/2016

U.S.C.
132

S.

Pg: 4 of 4

§ 841(b)(1)(A)

(2006);

Ct.

2321,

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