United States of America v. Shahiee Jermaine Flowers, a/k/a Munchie

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6762
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHAHIEE JERMAINE FLOWERS, a/k/a Munchie,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District
Judge. (1:06-cr-00558-MBS-2)
Submitted: October 20, 2016 Decided: November 3, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Shahiee Jermaine Flowers, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, John
David Rowell, Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Shahiee Jermaine Flowers appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion seeking a
sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing
Guidelines. We affirm.
“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). A
district court abuses its discretion, however, “when it . . .
relies on erroneous factual or legal premises, or commits an
error of law.” United States v. Briley, 770 F.3d 267, 276 (4th
Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under
§ 3582(c)(2), a district court may reduce the term of
imprisonment “of a defendant who has been sentenced . . . based
on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the
Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In assessing a
motion for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction, “[a] court must
first determine that a reduction is consistent with [U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual] § 1B1.10.” Dillon v. United
States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010). Under USSG § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B),
a sentence reduction is not authorized if the amendment “does
not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable
guideline range.” The applicable guideline range is the range

-- 2 of 4 --

3
“that corresponds to the offense level and criminal history
category determined pursuant to [USSG] § 1B1.1(a), which is
determined before consideration of any departure provision in
the Guidelines Manual or any variance.” USSG § 1B1.10 cmt.
n.1(A). The court cannot reduce the sentence under § 3582(c)(2)
to a term less than the minimum of the amended guideline range,
unless the original sentence was lower than the initial
guideline range to reflect the defendant’s substantial
assistance. USSG § 1B1.10(b)(2). Amendment 782 to the
Guidelines lowered the offense levels applicable to drug
offenses by two levels and is retroactively applicable. See
USSG § 1B1.10(d) (2015); supp. app. C, amend. 782.
At resentencing, in 2010, the district court granted
Flowers’ motion for a downward variance and reduced Flowers’
base offense level to reflect a one-to-one ratio of crack
cocaine to powder cocaine. While Amendment 782 lowered Flowers’
applicable guidelines range, the Guidelines make clear that
Flowers’ below-Guidelines sentence could be proportionally
reduced even further only if the original reduction was based on
substantial assistance. USSG § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A), (B); id., cmt.
n.3 (prohibiting a reduction below the bottom of the amended
guideline range even where the original term of imprisonment was
based on a downward variance or departure, except for departures
based on substantial assistance); USSG App. C, Amend. 759 (2011)

-- 3 of 4 --

4
(explaining rationale of amendment). See also Dillon, 560 U.S.
at 820-31 (holding that USSG § 1B1.10 is mandatory, not
advisory). Because Flowers’ sentence was not reduced to reflect
his substantial assistance, the district court was without
authority to resentence Flowers below the amended guideline
range.
Accordingly, we affirm that district court’s order. We
grant Flowers’ motion to clarify issues. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --