Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-13858/USCOURTS-ca11-15-13858-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pernell D. Scott
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-13858

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:08-cr-21104-DMM-13

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

PERNELL D. SCOTT, 

a.k.a. P-Dubb,

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(August 4, 2016)

Before HULL, MARCUS and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 15-13858 Date Filed: 08/04/2016 Page: 1 of 2
2

Pernell Scott, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of Scott’s

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

782. The Government concedes that the district court erroneously concluded that 

Scott is ineligible for a sentence reduction and suggests that we reverse the district 

court’s order and remand for the district court to determine, in its discretion, 

whether a sentence reduction is warranted under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. 

See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2691–92 (2010) 

(“At step one, § 3582(c)(2) requires the court to follow the Commission’s 

instructions in § 1B1.10 to determine the prisoner’s eligibility for a sentence 

modification and the extent of the reduction authorized. . . . At step two of the 

inquiry, § 3582(c)(2) instructs a court to consider any applicable § 3553(a) factors 

and determine whether, in its discretion, the reduction authorized by reference to 

the policies relevant at step one is warranted in whole or in part under the 

particular circumstances of the case.”).

VACATED and REMANDED.

USCA11 Case: 15-13858 Date Filed: 08/04/2016 Page: 2 of 2