UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7580

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JEREMIAH LAMAR TEAGUE, a/k/a Booper,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00022-RLV-CH-4)

Submitted: January 24, 2013 Decided: February 6, 2013

Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeremiah Lamar Teague, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, 

Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Asheville, 

North Carolina; Thomas A. O’Malley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jeremiah Lamar Teague appeals the district court’s 

denial of a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 

(2006) pursuant to Amendment 750 to the U.S. Sentencing 

Guidelines Manual. The district court explained its decision by 

stating that “[d]ue to the statutory mandatory minimum sentence 

required in this case, there is no change in the guidelines 

calculations.” We disagree. For the reasons explained below, 

we vacate the court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

Teague pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with 

intent to distribute cocaine powder and cocaine base (crack), 

and three substantive counts involving crack. He was held 

responsible, for sentencing purposes, for 1.7 kilograms of 

crack. His base offense level under the 2007 Guidelines Manual

was 36, reduced for acceptance of responsibility to a total 

offense level of 33. Teague was in criminal history category 

VI, which gave him an advisory Guidelines range of 235-293 

months. Because Teague was subject to a twenty-year mandatory 

minimum, the range was narrowed to 240-293 months pursuant to 

USSG § 5G1.1(c)(2).*

 In 2009, the district court reviewed 

Teague’s sentence to determine whether he was eligible for a 

 * Teague’s sentence was affirmed in August 2010. United 

States v. Teague, 392 F. App’x 250 (4th Cir. 2010).
3

sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) in light of Amendment 706 

and concluded that Amendment 706 had been applied at his 

sentencing. In August 2012, the district court reviewed 

Teague’s sentence to determine whether he was eligible for a 

sentence reduction in light of Amendment 750 and concluded that 

he was not. 

We review a district court’s decision to grant or deny 

a § 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. 

Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 200 (4th Cir. 2010). The district court 

has the authority to modify a defendant’s term of imprisonment 

pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) if the defendant’s sentence was “based 

on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the 

Sentencing Commission” through a retroactively applicable 

Guidelines amendment. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); see USSG 

§ 1B1.10(a)(1) (2012). The court abuses its discretion if it 

relies on an erroneous legal premise. DIRECTV, Inc. v. Rawlins, 

523 F.3d 318, 323 (4th Cir. 2008). 

Amendment 750 reduced Teague’s base offense level from 

36 to 34. See USSG § 2D1.1(c)(3) (840 grams to 2.8 kilograms of 

cocaine base). With a 3-level reduction for acceptance of 

responsibility, Teague’s revised total offense level was 31. 

Because he was in criminal history category VI, his revised 

Guidelines range was 188-235 months. Under § 5G1.1(b), when the 

“statutorily required minimum sentence is greater than the 
4

maximum of the applicable guideline range, the statutorily 

required minimum sentence shall be the guideline sentence.” 

Therefore, after Amendment 750 was enacted and made retroactive, 

Teague’s Guidelines range became 240 months. Thus, Teague’s 

288-month sentence became a sentence above the amended 

Guidelines range, rather than a sentence within the Guidelines 

range, as it was when the district court imposed it. The 

district court’s conclusion that Amendment 750 does not provide 

a basis for a sentence reduction was therefore erroneous.

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and 

remand for further proceedings. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED