USA v. Trevin Nunnally

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 20-14009
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TREVIN NUNNALLY,
a.k.a. Rick,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 5:05-cr-00045-MW-GRJ-1
USCA11 Case: 20-14009 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 02/17/2023 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 20-14009
____________________
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES
Before J ILL PRYOR , L UCK , and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The Supreme Court vacated and remanded our September
27, 2021, opinion affirming the district court’s denial of Trevin
Nunnally’s motion for sentence reduction pursuant to the First
Step Act of 2018 for reconsideration in light of
Concepcion v.
United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389 (2022).
In our original opinion, we noted that Nunnally acknowl-
edged that the district court did not err in denying his motion be-
cause our precedent in
United States v. Jones, 962 F.3d 1290 (11th
Cir. 2020), required the use of the “as if” framework outlined in
that opinion. Specifically, that framework states that any reduction
in sentence must be “as if sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing
Act . . . were in effect at the time the covered offense was commit-
ted” and means that the court cannot reduce a sentence where the
movant received the lowest statutory penalty available to him un-
der the Fair Sentencing Act. Nunnally received a sentence equal to
the lowest statutory penalty under the Fair Sentencing Act and so
we held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it
denied his motion.
USCA11 Case: 20-14009 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 02/17/2023 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

20-14009 Opinion of the Court 3
After a Supreme Court remand, our court recently held that
Concepcion did not abrogate the reasoning in
Jones.
United States
v. Jackson, __ F.4th __, 2023 WL 1501638 (11th Cir. Feb. 3, 2023).
Accordingly, we reinstated our prior opinion in
Jackson, which fol-
lowed
Jones. Because the binding law in our circuit has not
changed, we reinstate our prior decision and affirm the district
court’s denial of relief.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 20-14009 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 02/17/2023 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --