FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 29, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 69 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 4 :0 5- cr-0 02 27 -BAE-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us DEMETRICK CLEVELAND T IGNER, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ma rch 29 , 20 11 ) Befo re CARNES, WILSON andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Dem etric k C le ve la ndTig ne r ap pe al s p ro se fro m th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er gr an ti ng hi s m ot io n t o re du ce h is 12 6- m on thsen te nc e und er 1 8 U.S.C. §35 82 (c)( 2) an d re se nt en ci ng hi m to a 12 5- m on th sen te nc e, whi ch was a t the to p o f th e am en de d g ui de li ne ran ge . Tign er co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredby fai li ng to co ns id er the 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s an d t he publ ic saf ety fact or
un de r U.S.S.G. § 1 B1 .10 inres en te nc in g h im
. 1 A di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on to gra ntor d en y a § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) reduc ti on is
rev ie wedon ly for anab us e o f di sc ret io n. Un it edSta te s v . Whi te , 30 5 F .3d12 64 , 12 67 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). A di st ric t co urt m ay m od ify a term

of i m pr is on m en t i f a de fen da ntrece iv eda se nt en ce b as edon a gu id el in es ran ge th atwas l at er l owe red by the Sen te nc in g C omm is si on so lo ng as t he reduc ti on is co ns is te ntwith t he Co m m is si on ’s app li cab le po li cy st at em en ts . 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ); Un it edSta te s v. Eg ge rs do rf, 1 26 F.3d13 18 , 13 21 –2 2 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 7) (“ The law p erm it s, b ut do es no t re qu ire , th e d is tri ctco urt t o re se nt en ce a d efen da nt .”). Inde ci di ng a § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n, t he di stric t co urt m us t fi rs t re cal cu la te th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es ran ge , subs ti tu ti ng th e am en de d g ui de li ne forth e o ne
or ig in al ly use d. Un it edSta te s v . W il li am s, 5 57 F.3d12 54 , 12 56 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). The di st ric t co urt t he n m

us t d eci de in it s d is cret io n wh ethe r to ret ai n the ori gi na l
se nt en ce o r to im

po se a ne w sen te nc e wit hi n the am en de d rang e, co ns id eri ng th e § Tig ner a lso argues that the district cour t failed to consider

his post-sentencingconduct, 1 but that is something the district cour t does not have to c onsider. See U .S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. 1(B )(iii). 235 53 (a) fa ct or s, as well as p ub li c sa fet y co ns id erat io ns . Id. (ci ti ng U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 0, cmt. 1 (B)) . The d is tri ctco urt i s “ no t re qu ire d t o a rti cu la te th e ap pl ic ab il it y

of e ach fact or , as l on g a s t he reco rdde m on st rat es th atth e p ert in en t fact or s wer e ta ke n i nt o a cco un t.” Id . (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . W e m us t v acat e
an d re m an d “ [i]f itis no t p os si bl e to de te rm in e fro m th e rec or d wh ethe r th e d is tri ct
co urt co ns id eredth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s.” Un it edSta te s v . Dou gl as , 57 6 F .3d12 16 , 12 19 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). InEgg ers do rf, th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er d idno t s pe ci fic al ly referen ce an y of th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s, b utitst at edth atitha d re vi ewedth e rel ev an t d oc um en ts , in cl ud in g t he m ot io ns an d t he reco rd . Egg ers do rf, 1 26 F.3dat 1 32 2– 23 . W e h el d th atth e d is tri ctco urt’s i nd ic at io n t ha t i t h adrev ie wedth e rel ev an t d oc um en ts was
su ffi ci en t t o d em on st rat e th atitha d c on si de redth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s b ecau se th e de fen da nt ’s § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n “ se t o utth e p ert in en t § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s wo rdfor
wor d,” an d b ecau se th e g ov ern m en t’s m ot io n i n o pp os it io n m ad e sp eci fic arg um en ts ba se d o n t ho se fact or s. Id . W e n ot edth atth e d is tri ctco urt ju dg e who de ci de d t he § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n was fam il ia r wit h t he off en se an d t he de fen da nt be cau se th atjud ge ha d o rig in al ly sen te nc edth e d efen da nt . Id. at13 23
. Inth is cas e, Tig ne r se t o utth e p ert in en t fa ct or s wo rdfor wordan d m ad e sp eci fic arg um en ts ba se d o n t ho se fact or s i n h is m ot io n fo r a s en te nc e reduc ti on 3an d h is m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n. Th e d is tri ctco urt ex pr es sl y st at edinit s o rd er gr an ti ng th e se nt en ce re du ct io n a ndit s o rd er d en y in g re co ns id erat io n t ha t i t h ad

“ co ns id ered ” Tig ne r’s m ot io ns . By st at in g i t h adco ns id eredth os e m ot io ns , th e di st ric t co urt ad equa te ly dem on st rat edth atitweig he d t he rel ev an t fa ct or s. Add it io na ll y , as i n Eg ge rs do rf, th e d is tri ctco urt ju dg e was fam il ia r wit h b ot h Tig ne r an d h is off

en se be cau se he was t he jud ge who ha d o rig in al ly sen te nc ed Tig ne r. AFFIRMED.

4