[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 12

- 14290 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:93

- cr - 00252

- UU

- 4

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus
CHEDRICK CRUMMIE, a.k.a. Shatrack,

Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal fro m the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ (April 23, 2013) Case: 12-14290 Date Filed: 04/23/2013 Page: 1 of 42 Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, WILSON a nd ANDERSON , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Appellant Chedrick Crummie, a federal prisoner proceeding with counsel , appeal s the district court’s order granting his motion to reduce sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), and reducing his sentence to a term of 360 months’ imprisonment

. Crummie argues that the court erred “by treating the Guidelines as advisory” and sentencing Crumm ie to a term that was greater than his amended guideline range of 262 to 327 months ’ imprisonment that resulted from the application of Amendment 750.
We review de novo a district court’ s legal conclusions on the scope of its authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Jones , 548 F.3d 1366, 1368 (11th Cir. 2008). A district court’ s decision to grant or deny a sentence reduction is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id. at n.1. A district court may modify a sentence if the defendant “has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S. C. § 3582(c)(2). W hen considering a motion for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) , a district court
must e ngage in a two

- step analysis. United States v. Bravo , 203 F.3d 778, 780 (11th Cir. 2000). First, the court must determine the sentence it would have imposed, given the defendant’s amended guideline range and holding all other

Case: 12-14290 Date Filed: 04/23/2013 Page: 2 of 43 guideline findings made at t he original sentencing hearing constant. Id. Second, the court must consider the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and then determine, in its discretion, whether to reduce the defendant’s sentence. Id. at 781; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(B)(i)). Under the second step, the district court “must consider the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), as well as public safety considerations, and may consider the defendant’s post

- sentencing condu ct, in evaluating whether a reduction in the defendant’s sentence is warranted and the extent of any such reduction.” United States v. Williams , 557 F.3d 1254, 1256 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(B)). We conclude from the rec ord that t he district court neither lacked the authority to sentence Crummie to a term above the modified sentencing range nor abused its discretion in doing so. The district court was required, after recalculating Crummie’s sentence under the amended gui delines , to determine the
extent to which his senten ce should be reduced

— if at all

— in consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, as well as other concerns. See generally Williams , 557 F.3d at
1256. The record indicates that the district court appropriately considered the § 3553(a) factors, giving particular consideration to the seriousness of the offense, in determining th at only a reduction to a term above the modified guideline range

was appropriate. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion, and we affirm its order

.

Case: 12-14290 Date Filed: 04/23/2013 Page: 3 of 44 AFFIRMED. Case: 12-14290 Date Filed: 04/23/2013 Page: 4 of 4