United States of America v. Kwame Ghandi Austin

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6924
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KWAME GHANDI AUSTIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:05-cr-00391-FDW-3)
Submitted: August 2, 2012 Decided: August 14, 2012
Before WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kwame Ghandi Austin, Appellant Pro Se. William A. Brafford,
Cortney Escaravage, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Kwame Ghandi Austin appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion seeking a reduction of sentence under 18
U.S.C. § 3582 (2006). A district court’s decision on whether to
reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for abuse of
discretion, while its conclusion on the scope of its legal
authority under that provision is reviewed de novo. United
States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010).
Our review of the record convinces us that the
district court properly concluded that Austin is ineligible for
the sentence reduction that he seeks. Pertinent to this appeal,
a district court may reduce a defendant’s sentence under
§ 3582(c) if a retroactively applicable amendment to the
Guidelines applies to lower the Guidelines range applicable to
the defendant. See USSG § 1B1.10(a)(2). As a result, a
defendant who was sentenced pursuant to a mandatory statutory
minimum sentence is ineligible for a reduction under
§ 3582(c)(2). Munn, 595 F.3d at 187.
In this case, Austin’s 108-month sentence is pegged to
the statutory mandatory minimum, not to the drug quantity
Guidelines provisions that were subsequently altered by
Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines. See USSG § 5G1.1(b)
(where the mandatory minimum sentence is greater than the
otherwise-applicable guideline range, the minimum sentence is

-- 2 of 3 --

3
the guideline sentence). Contrary to Austin’s contentions, the
Government’s substantial assistance motion did not eliminate the
applicability of the mandatory minimum and thereby resuscitate
the drug quantity provisions of the Guidelines. Instead, the
Government’s motion simply gave the court the ability to impose
a sentence below the mandatory minimum “so as to reflect a
defendant’s substantial assistance.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e)
(2006). Austin’s sentence therefore reflects a reduction from
the statutory mandatory minimum based on the quality of his
substantial assistance, not an assessment of his culpability
vis-à-vis the drug quantity Guidelines calculations.
Because his sentence was not based on a Guidelines
provision that was subsequently amended, Austin is ineligible
for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c). Munn, 595 F.3d at
187. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --