T he Honor able Amul R. Thapa r, United States District Judge f or the Ea stern District of * Kentucky , sitti ng by

desig nation. De Witt s ig ns his name w it h a capi tal W, an d th a t sp e lli ngis u se d in the PSR a

nd on thi s 1 c ourt ’s do c ke t sh e e t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt do c ke t sh e e t and thi s c ourt ’s pr ior

op ini on s, ho we ve r, us e “De witt.” NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0415n.06 No. 09-3645 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff -Appellee ,

v. KEI TH W. DEWI TT, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UN I TE D ST ATE S DI STR I CT CO UR T FO R THE SOU TH ERN D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

Before: G ILMAN and WHIT E, Circuit Judges; and T HAP AR, Distr ict Judge. * HELE NE N. WHITE, Circuit Jud ge. Def endant Ke ith DeWitt (De Wit t) appe als from 1 the district court’s or der de ny ing h i s motion for reduc tion of sentence under 18 U .S.C. § 3582(c). We AFF I RM. I I n Se pte mbe r 19 98 , a fe de ra l g ra nd jur y re tur ne d a se ve n- c ount i nd ic tme nt c ha rg ingDe Witt with conspirac y

to possess with intent to di stribute more than one kilogr am of heroin and more than fi ve kil og ra

ms o f c oc a ine , in c lud ingc ra c k; w ithmon e y la un de ri ng ; and

wi th m a kin g f

a l s e s t a t e m e nts

on fede ral in c ome ta x re tur ns . D e Witt p le a de d guil ty of on e c ount o f c on sp ir ingto p os se ss w ithNo. 09-3645

Un ite d S tat es v . D e W

itt

- 2 - intent to dist ribute more tha n one kilog ram of he roin and more than five kilogr ams of coc aine, on one count of

money launder ing, a

nd on one count of

making false statements on fede ral income tax returns. The pre sentenc e re port (P S R ) p re p are d in 2000 calculated an of fense level of 42, le ss two levels for ac ce p tance of re sponsibili ty , and plac ed De witt in criminal history cate g ory I . The pertinent statutes provide d for sentenc es of a 10- y ear mandatory

minimum up to life imprisonment for the dr ug count; up to 20 y ear s for the mone y launder ing c ount; and up to 3 y ear s for income -tax evasion. The PSRcalc ulated a Guidelines rang e of 292 to 365 months and rec ommended conc urre nt

s e n t e n c e s o f

3 0 0 m o n t h s , 2 4 0 m o n t h s , an d 3 6 m o n t h s , r e s p e c t i v e l y. Be fore sentenc ing, the district court hear d evidenc e reg arding conduct for which De Wit t had been a cquitted in state cour t, and found by

a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e tha t DeWitt had

c omm itt e d o ne mur de r a

nd a be tte d a no the r. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt de te rm ine d that D e Witt h a d a ba se offe nse leve l of 36, and added 2 levels because it found that DeWitt pos sessed a firea rm during the conspirac y , an d 4 le v e ls b e c a u s e it f o u n d th a t h e p la

y e d a le a d e r s h ip r o le in th e c o n s p ir a c y . See Uni te d S tat es v . D e W

itt , 304 F. App’ x 365, 369 (6th Cir. 2008) (unpublished disposition), c e rt. denied , 129 S. Ct . 2024 (2009). B ased on t he adjusted of fense level of 42 a

nd criminal history cate g ory I , DeWitt’s Guidelines rang e wa s 360 mon t h s t o life imprisonment. The district cour t sentenc ed De Wit t to life, 240 months, and 36 months on t he re sp ec t i v e counts, unde r the thenmandatory

Guidelines. Id. at 366-67.No. 09-3645

Un ite d S tat es v . D e W

itt

See Southern District of Ohio Ge nera l Order Nos

. 08-02 and 08- 03, available from 2 www.ohsd.uscour

ts.gov under “Ge nera l O rder s,” and found unde r the title “District-Wide Or ders.” - 3 - DeWitt appealed, a

nd this court vacated the sente nces a nd rema nded for rese ntencingunder United States v. Book

er , 543 U.S. 220 ( 2005). Un ite d S tates v . D e W

itt , 145 F. App’ x 980 (6th Cir. 2005). On rema

nd, the district court ag ain sentenc ed De Wit t to life imprisonment, 240 mont hs, and 36 months. Se e De W

itt , 304 F. App’ x at 366-67. DeWitt appealed his re sentenc ing a nd this court aff irmed, finding that the district court did not violate DeWi tt’s Fifth or Six th Amendment rig hts by consideringstate-c ourt ac quitted c onduct conce rning the murder of two persons that was supporte d by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e. Id. at 368. DeWitt filed a motion for reduc tion of sentenc e pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582. De Wit t was deter mined to be elig ible for a

reduc tion, and the amended Guide lines rang e wa s calc ulated base d

2

on of fe ns e le ve l 40 and

c ri min a l hi sto ry

c a te g or y I(2 92 -3 65 mon ths ). Th e Go ve rnme nt o bje c te d to DeWitt’s motion, noting that “De Wit t’s life sentenc e was based on the Court’s finding that he had participated in two murders a s a par t of his drug activit ies.” A post-se ntencingaddendum to the PSR , whichth e d is tr ic t c o u rt h a d r e qu e s te d , r e c o mm e n d e d a g a in s t a r e d u c ti o nb e c a

u s e D e Wi tt ’s rele ase w ould pose “a

n extreme dang er to the c ommunity .” The district cour

t denied De Wit t’s motion for reduction of se ntence , and this appea l ensued.

II This court re views for

abuse of discret i o n a dis trict court’ s decision to deny a motion for reduc tion of

sentenc e pursua

nt to 18 U.S.C . § 3582(c) (2). Un ite d S tates v . M e tc alf e , 581 F.3d 456,No. 09-3645

Un ite d S tat es v . D e W

itt

- 4 - 459 (6th Cir. 2009). This standard is in keeping “with t he langua g e of the s tatute, which pr ovides that th e c ourt may

reduc e the ter

m of impri s onment.” Id. (citation and inter nal quotation marks omi tte d) . “ A d istri c t c ourt a bu se s it s dis c re tio n wh e n it r e lie s o n c le arl y e rr on e ou s f

ind ing s o f f

a c t, applies t he law improperly , or uses a n err oneous leg al standar d.” Me tc alf e , 581 F.3d at 459 (citing United States v. Lineback , 330 F.3d 441, 443 ( 6th Cir. 2003)). 18 U. S.C. § 3 58 2( c ) p ro vid e s in pe rt ine nt p art : (c) Modif

ication of an im posed term of i m prisonme nt. – T h e co u rt may not modify a ter m of imprisonment once it has bee n imposed except that – (2) in t h e ca s e o f a defenda nt who has bee n sentenc ed to a ter m of imprisonment based on a sentenc ing rang e that has subse quently been lowe red by

the Sentencing Co mm is s io n p u r s u an t to 2 8 U

. S. C. 9 9 4 ( o ) , u p o n mo ti o n o f th e d e f

e n d ant . . . the c ourt may re du c e the te rm of imp ri so nme nt, a ft e r c on sid e ri ngthe fa c tor s se t f or th i n section 3553(a ) to the extent that they are applicable , if such a reduc tion is consistent with applicable policy

statements issued by

the SentencingCommi ssion. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

.

Effe ctive Nove mber 1, 2007, U.S.S .G. § 2D1.1(c ) was amende d to reduc e the base of fense level for

most crac k coca ine offe nses. U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 706. The amendment adjusts downwar d by two levels the ba se off

ense l ev els for the quan ti ti e s o f

c r a c k

. . . . E f f e c ti v e M ar c h 3 , 2 0 0 8 , th e a me n dme n ts to th e c o caine

base guideline wer e made retroa ctive, so that a de fenda nt serving an elig ible coca inebase se ntence can f

ile a m o t i o n for a

sentenc e re duction. See 73 Fe d. Reg . 217-01 (Jan. 2, 20 08 ); § 1 B 1. 10 (a )( 1) , ( c ) ( Sup p. 20 08 ); see18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

. Un ite d S tat es v . P oo le , 538 F.3d 644, 645- 46 (6th Cir. 2008). ANo. 09-3645

Un ite d S tat es v . D e W

itt

- 5 - DeWitt conte nds that the district c ourt err ed in deny ing his §3582 motion without holdi ng a hea ring , and without consi d er i ng the § 3553(a ) fa ctors. We conc lude that neither argument

war rants a r emand. First, De Wit t’s motion for reduc tion of sentence di d not reque st a hea ring , nothing in § 3582(c) (2), quoted su

pra , require s a hea

ring , and F ed. R. Crim. P. 43(b)(4) provide s that “[a] defe ndant nee d not be pre sent” at a “proce eding involv[ ing] the correc tion or reduc tion of sentence . . . under 18 § 3582( c).” Second, the district c ourt stated in its order denying DeWitt’s motion for reduc tion of sentence that it had re- analy zed DeWitt’s sentence in lig ht of the § 3553(a ) fa ctors and the re calc ulated Guidelines r ang e:

Pur su ant t o th e re a so nin g se t for th by the Un ite d Stat e s Prob a tio n O ff ic e , in its P ost-SentencingAddendum to the Prese ntence Report (filed unde r sea l, with a c op y ma i l e d

t o D e f e n d an t , a tD o c . # 4 2 3 ) , an d t h e G o v e r

n m e n t ’ s R e s p o n s e in Opposition (Doc. #422) to Defenda nt’s Motion to Reduce Sentence (Doc . #419), as well as upon this Court’s revie w of notes made contempora neous with the initial and se c on d s e nte nc ingof thi s De fe nd ant, thi s Co ur t c on c lud e s th a t, whil e De fe nd ant i s e lig ibl e fo r a

pp lic a tio n o f t

he ne w C oc a ine -b a se Gu ide lin e re du c tio n, sa id De fe nd ant’ s Mo tio n f

or a Re du c tio n o f S e nte nce p urs ua nt t he re to ( Do c . # 41 9) is ov e rr ule d. Th e ba sis of

thi s Co ur

t’ s r e a so nin g , in

a dd iti on to t he for egoin g, is its conclusion that this Defe ndant re prese nts a serious dang er to the sa fety of the community . I t rea ches this conc lusion, based upon the afor esaid, and based upon a re- analy s is of the Def

endant’ s sentence , in light of both the Advisory Sentencing Guidelines and the statutory fac tors of sentenc ing se t forth in 18 U .S.C. § 3553(a). I n short, the Def

endant’ s conduct while w ithin the [ prison/] instit uti o n d oes not outweig h the serious risk that this Court has conc luded Def endant r epre sents to the community . [R . 424.] Third, a lt h o u g h th e p arti e s c it e n o p u b li s h e d a u th o r it y f r o m t h is c ir c u it

a d dr e s s in g D e Wit t’s arguments, a pane l of this court dec ided Un ite d S tates v . Cu rry , No. 08 -1 73 2, 20 10 WL45 53 64 (6 th Cir. Feb. 10, 2010) (unpublished disposition), during the pendenc y of this appea l. I t rejec ted similarNo. 09-3645

Un ite d S tat es v . D e W

itt

- 6 - arguments: that the district court abuse d its discretion by denying a § 3582 motion for rese ntencing wi tho ut c on du c tin g a

he ari ngand wi tho ut expr e ssl y c on sid e ri nga ll the re le va nt s e nte nc ingfa c tor s. The Cur ry panel de termined that the r ecor d had bee n amply develope d befor e the § 3582 motion, that the sentenc ing judg e had c onsidered the rele vant fa ctors a t the orig inal sentenc ing a nd at the

rese ntencingunder Booke r , and that the judg e rulingon Curry ’s m o t ion to reduce sentenc e had revie wed the e ntire re cord. It conclude d t h at , u n d er the circ umstances, the district c ourt did not abuse its discre tion in deny ing the motion:

I n the pre sent case, the district court did not conduc t a hea ring on Curry ’s motion, and d i d n o t ex pressly consider a ll the § 3553 fac tors that might have been rele vant. Curry

arg ues that the distri ct co u rt abused its discre tion in deny ing the motion without either spe cifica lly articulating the r easons for doi ng so or identifying fac tors in Curry ’s particular record that justified the denial. The only case Curry

cites in support of his argument that the lack of specific ity

constitut ed an ab u se of dis c re tio n is United States v. W illiams , 557 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2009). [] That ca se, be sid e s b e ing fr om the El e ve nth Cir c uit , d oe s n ot a dv anc e Cur ry ’s c a us e , a s it sim ply he ld that whil e a dis tr ic t c ourt “ ‘m us t consider the fac tors listed in § 3553(a)’ when deter mining whe ther to red u ce a defe ndant’s orig inal sentenc e . . . [,] the district cour t is not required to a rticulate the applicability of ea ch fa ctor, ‘a s long a s the rec ord as a whole demonstrates that the pertinent fa ctors we re taken into acc ount by the district court.’” W

illiams , 5 5 7 F. 3 d

at 1 2 5 6 (e mp h as i s a d d e d ) ( qu o t i n g United States v. Vautier , 1 4 4 F. 3 d 7 5 6 , 7 6 2 (1 1 t h C i r. 1 9 9 8 ) ( ci t i n g United States v. Eg ge rsd or f , 126 F.3d 1318, 1322 ( 11th Cir. 1997)). I n Eg ge rsd or f , the Eleventh Circuit f

ound, in the context of revie wi n g the denial of a

motion for rese ntencingunder § 3582( c)( 2), that the district cour t’s order , though shor

t, was “ba sed on the re cord a s a whole” and “e nunciated sufficient re asons for its order

denying r esente ncing .” Eg ge rsd or f , 1 2 6 F. 3 d at 1 3 2 2

. T h er e, al t h o u gh the dis tr ic t c ourt

ha d n ot s pe c if

ic a lly we ig he d the § 355 3( a ) f a c tor s, the El e ve nth Circuit held that the lower court ha d not abused its discretio n an d had provide d sufficie nt rea sons for its decision t o deny rese ntencing , “[e]specially consideringthat the district court’s f

inal order specific ally ref

ere nced the Gover

nment’s Opposition, which in turn cit ed s p ecific eleme nts that were rele vant to the nec essar y section 3553(a) inquiry

and that we re suppor

ted by the re cord . . . .” Id. at 1323.No. 09-3645

Un ite d S tat es v . D e W

itt

- 7 - The same principles apply here . Cl ea rl y , the district court’s or der de nying Curry ’s motion to resente n ce was c ursory at best. Howe ver, a s in Eg ge rsd or f , the rec ord h ad b ee n amply

develope d befor e the r esente ncing motion at issue here w as filed. Judge Quist [who ha d imposed the orig inal 87-month sentence (the Guide lines ra ng e be ing87 -1 08 mon ths ), and the po st- Booke r

below-G uidelines sentenc e of 75 months] had al rea dy

considere d the re levant fa ctors in some depth at the orig inal sentenc ing and the f

irst resente ncing under Booke r , at which time he im posed a (then) below-guidelines s e ntence of 75 months. J udg e Jonker [t o whom J udg e Quist ref err ed Curry ’s § 3582 motion for re sentenc ing] indicated he had r eviewe d the entire rec ord, including the parties’ rec ommendations, and had considere d all the re levant § 3553(a ) fac tors and the S en t en cing Guidelines in making his decision. Under the circ umstances, this Court cannot conclude that he abuse d his discretion in denying the defe ndant’s motion for fur ther modification of his sentence

. Cur ry , 2010 WL 455364, at *6-7. I n the instant case , the same judg e pres i d ed o v er the multi -y ear proce eding s, including DeWitt’s origina l sentencing , his resente ncing under Booke r , and his § 3582 motion for reduc tion of sentenc e. As in Cur

ry (and Eg ge rsd or f , discussed in Cur

ry ), the re cord ha d been a mply develope d be f o r e t h e r e s e n t e n c i n g m o t i o nan d t h e r e c o r d

a s a w h o l e d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a tt h e c o u rtt o o k int o

acc ount the pertinent sente ncing fac tors. We conclude that the district court did not err by ruling on DeWitt’s moti on for r eduction of sentenc e without holding a hear ing a nd without ex pressly

ref ere ncing the per

tinent sentencingfac tors in its order deny

ing the motion. B DeW i t t al so argues that the district cour t abused its discretion by failingto rec alculate the advisory Guidelines and in de ny ing his mot ion for reduction of sentenc e. Noting that the rec alculate d Guidelines ca ll for a 30-y ear term, De Wit t asserts that the c ourt did not consider whe ther a ny sentenc eNo. 09-3645

Un ite d S tat es v . D e W

itt

- 8 - oth e r t ha n li fe im pris on me nt c ou ld h a ve pr ote c te d th e pu bli c , a nd did no t take int o a c c ount h is exemplary

prison rec ord. The re cord be lies DeWitt’s arg ument that the district court fa iled to rec alculate the advisory Guidelines. On the district court’s request, a post -sentenc ing addendum to the P SR was pre pare d that

rec alculate d the Guidelines, a nd the cour

t adopted its rea soning in it s order denying D eWitt’s § 3582 motion. The district court’s orde r also stated that it re-ana ly zed DeWitt’s sentence i n light of the

rec alculate d advisory

Guidelines. Althoug h the district court’s or der did not state the r eca lculated Gu ide lin e s r ang e (i .e ., 29 2 to 36 5 mo nth s) , it c ann ot f a ir ly be sa id t hat th e c ourt

fa ile d to re c a lc ulate the advisory

Guidelines ra

ng e or take it into account. The district cour

t’s orde r al s o makes c lear that it did consider DeWitt’s prison rec ord, as evidenc ed by its ref

ere nce thereto: “De fenda nt’s conduct while within the [ prison/] instit ution does not outweig h the s erious risk that this Court has concluded Defenda nt repr esents to t he community .” R. 424. The district court’s ba lancingof De Wit t’s prison rec ord ag ainst its assessment of the dang er DeWitt would pose to the community wer e his sentenc e re duced is in ke eping with U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n. 1(B ), which pr ovides that when deter mining whether a defe ndant should rece ive a se ntence reduc tion under § 3582(c) (2), “the c ourt shall consider the nature and ser iousness of the dang er to a ny person or the community

that may be posed by

a reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment.” W e co n cl ude that the district cour t did not abuse its discretion in denying D eWitt’s § 3582 motion for reduc tion of sentence , and AF F IRM

.