Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-24-10759/USCOURTS-ca11-24-10759-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Trenard Caldwell
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-10759

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TRENARD CALDWELL, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 0:18-cr-60127-WPD-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 24-10759 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 01/14/2025 Page: 1 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 24-10759

Before BRANCH, BRASHER, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Trenard Caldwell, proceeding pro se, appeals the denial of his 

motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). 

The Government, in turn, has moved for summary affirmance.

A district court may modify a defendant’s term of imprisonment if the defendant was sentenced based on a sentencing range 

that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). “This authority is limited to those 

guideline amendments listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c) that have the 

effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range.” 

United States v. Williams, 557 F.3d 1254, 1256 (11th Cir. 2009) (addressing § 1B1.10(c), now § 1B1.10(d) (quotation marks omitted)). 

The applicable policy statement for § 3582(c)(2) motions is 

§ 1B1.10. United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1256 (11th Cir. 

2021).

In a motion for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2), a 

district court must engage in a two-step analysis, including deciding 

(1) whether a retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines 

lowered a defendant’s Guidelines range consistent with the applicable policy statements; and (2) whether, in its discretion, it should 

reduce the defendant’s sentence considering the § 3553(a) factors 

and whether the defendant poses a threat to the safety of the community. See United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780-81 (11th Cir. 

USCA11 Case: 24-10759 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 01/14/2025 Page: 2 of 5
24-10759 Opinion of the Court 3

2000); Williams, 557 F.3d at 1256; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(B)(i)-(ii)).

In November 2023, Amendment 820 to the Sentencing 

Guidelines went into effect. See U.S. Sentencing Commission, 

Adopted Amendments (Effective November 1, 2023), Amendment 820. 

In the Amendment, U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) (2021) was amended by inserting after “1 additional level.” the following: 

The term ‘preparing for trial’ means substantive preparations taken to present the government’s case 

against the defendant to a jury (or judge, in the case 

of a bench trial) at trial. ‘Preparing for trial’ is ordinarily indicated by actions taken close to trial, such as 

preparing witnesses for trial, in limine motions, proposed voir dire questions and jury instructions, and 

witness and exhibit lists. Preparations for pretrial proceedings (such as litigation related to a charging document, discovery motions, and suppression motions) 

ordinarily are not considered ‘preparing for trial’ under this subsection. Post-conviction matters (such as 

sentencing objections, appeal waivers, and related issues) are not considered ‘preparing for trial.’

U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) (2023). Additionally, the commentary to 

§ 3E1.1 captioned “Application Notes” was amended in Note 6 by 

striking “The government should not withhold such a motion 

based on interests not identified in § 3E1.1, such as whether the 

defendant agrees to waive his or her right to appeal.” Compare

USCA11 Case: 24-10759 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 01/14/2025 Page: 3 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 24-10759

U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b), comment (n.6) (2021), with U.S.S.G. 

§ 3E1.1(b), comment (n.6) (2023). Amendment 820 did not alter 

the fact that a defendant can only receive a third acceptance of responsibility point under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) if the defendant has already received a two-level reduction under § 3E1.1(a). U.S.S.G. 

§ 3E1.1(b).

The district court did not err or abuse its discretion in denying Caldwell’s motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to Amendment 820.1 First, Amendment 820 is not retroactive, as it is not 

listed among the retroactive amendments in the applicable policy 

statements, and therefore, it cannot have the effect of lowering his 

sentence retroactively. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d); 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2). Second, even if Amendment 820 applied retroactively, it would not lower Caldwell’s Guidelines range, because he 

did not receive the two-point acceptance of responsibility reduction and it only relates to the third acceptance of responsibility 

point which first requires that he receive the two-level reduction. 

U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b); 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Therefore, the Government is clearly right as a matter of law and is entitled to summary 

affirmance. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 

1 We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions about the scope of 

its authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Lawson, 686 F.3d 

1317, 1319 (11th Cir. 2012). “If § 3582(c)(2) applies, we review a district court’s 

decision to grant or deny a sentence reduction only for abuse of discretion.” 

United States v. Caraballo-Martinez, 866 F.3d 1233, 1238 (11th Cir. 2017). 

USCA11 Case: 24-10759 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 01/14/2025 Page: 4 of 5
24-10759 Opinion of the Court 5

(5th Cir. 1969)2 (stating summary disposition is appropriate, in part, 

where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter 

of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the appeal is frivolous”). 

Accordingly, we GRANT the Government’s motion for 

summary affirmance.

AFFIRMED.

2 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), 

this Court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to close of business on September 30, 1981.

USCA11 Case: 24-10759 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 01/14/2025 Page: 5 of 5