[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 15

- 14305 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:01

- cr - 00763

- FAM

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus RONALD HUE BURCH, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

_________________ _______ (April 3, 2017) Before MARCUS , JORDAN and FAY , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 15-14305 Date Filed: 04/03/2017 Page: 1 of 62 Ronald Burch appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 motion for a reduction of his 240

- month sentence based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Upon carefu l review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we affirm.
I
Because we w rite for the parties, we assume their familiarity with the underlying record and recite only what is necessary to resolve this appeal.
In 2002 , Mr. Burch pled guilty to one count of conspir ing to possess , with the intent to distribute , cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § § 841(a)(1) and 846, and one count of possessing a firearm “ during an d in relation to

. . . [ a ] drug trafficking crime ” in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). According to the then

- applicable drug quantity table found in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(3), Mr. Burch ’s base offense level was 34 because his offense involved at least 15 but less than 50 kilograms of cocaine

. See PSI a t ¶ 23.
Mr. Burch’s offense level was lowered by two level s because he demonstrated acceptance of responsibility , an d by one additional level for timely notifying the government of his intention to plead guilty. See id. ¶ 29

– 30. Based

on a total offense level of 31 and crimi nal history category of V, the drug c ount ’s advisory guideline range was 168 to 210 months ’ imprisonment , while the possession of a firearm count carrie d a mandatory minimum of 60 months ’

Case: 15-14305 Date Filed: 04/03/2017 Page: 2 of 63 consecutive imprisonment

. Mr. Burch was sentenced to 180 m onths ’ imprisonment and 60 months ’ imprisonment , respectively, to run consecutively. In 2014, Mr. Burch , proceeding pro se , filed a § 3582 motion for modification or reduction of sentence based on Amendment 782

. Mr. Burch argued that his s entence should be reduced because of his vocational and
educa tional progress while in prison

. A fter appointing counsel for Mr. Burch and holding a hearing , the district court denied the motion for a sentence reduction in April of 2015. In pertinent part, the district court denied the motion because of the violent nature of the offense , Mr. Burch’s criminal history , and the need to protect the public . In addition, the court reasoned that Mr. Burch’s coursework did not outweigh consideration of the other § 3553(a) factors.
A fter the district court denied the § 3582 motion, Mr. Burch filed a pro se motion for relief from the judgment, arguing that the district court did not properly articulate its reason for the denial

. That motion was later denied in September of 2015, and Mr. Burch now appeals

. 1
II We review de novo a district court’s legal conclusions about the scope of its authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Anderson , 772 F.3d

1 The government argues that Mr. Burch’s notice of appeal was untimely. But Mr. Burch’s pro se motion for relief from judgment was filed within 14 days of the district court’s denial of his § 3582 motion and therefore tolled the time for filing a notice of appeal until the district court ruled on Mr. Burch’s motion for relief in September of 2015. See, e.g. , United States v. Glover , 686 F.3d 1203, 1206 (11th Cir. 2012)

.

Case: 15-14305 Date Filed: 04/03/2017 Page: 3 of 64 662, 666 (11th Cir. 2014). Once it is established that § 3582(c) (2) applies, the district court’s decision about whether to reduce a sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Jules , 595 F.3d 1239, 1241

– 42 (11th Cir. 2010)

. A district court abuses its discr etion if , for example, it fails to apply the proper legal standard or to follow proper procedures. Id.
III
A district court conducts a two

- step analysis when considering whether to exercise its discreti on to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c) (2)

. See United States
v. Bravo , 203 F.3d 778, 780 (11th Cir. 2000). First, the district court must determine the sentence it would have imposed using the defendant’s amended guideline range while keeping intact all other guideline findings made at the

or iginal se ntencing hearing

. See id

. Second , after considering the factors listed in § 3553(a) , the court must decide whether to impose a sentence under the newly

- calculated range o r to retain the original sentence. See United States v. Williams , 557 F.3d 1254 , 1256 (11th Cir. 2009)

. 2
The factors listed in § 3553(a) include the need “ to reflect the seriousness of the offense;

. . . to provide just punishment for the offense ; to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; [and] to protect the public from further crimes of

2 The first step of the analysis is not at issue because Mr. Burch is elig ible for a two

- level reduction. The applicable advisory sentencing guideline range for Mr. Burch’s narcoti cs offense was lowered by Amendment 782, and can be applied retroactively. Amendment 782 lowered Mr. Burch’s base offense level from 168 to 210 months’ imprisonment to 140 to 175 months’ imprisonment. See U.S.S.G. §§ 1B1.1, 2D1.1 (2014).

Case: 15-14305 Date Filed: 04/03/2017 Page: 4 of 65 the defendant.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)

- (C). Additional factors include “ the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the
defendant ,” as well as “ the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct .” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(6). The district court has discretion about how to weigh each factor , s ee United States v. Clay , 483 F. 3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 2007), and it is not necessary for a
court to articulate each factor , so long as the record demonstrates that the § 3553(a) factors were adequately considered. See Williams , 557 F.3d at 1256. Upon considering the factors, a court m ay also consider the defendant’ s post

- sentencing conduct

. See id

. Mr. Burch argues that the district court did not provide sufficient reasoning to satisfy the second prong of the analysis

. We disagree. T he district court did not abuse its d iscretion because it stated which of the § 3553(a) factors weigh ed against a sentence reduction and explained that if released, Mr. Burch “ would still be young and strong enough to commit strong arm robberies and home invasions. ” Transcript of Hearing, D.E. 237 at 8. The district court also expressly considered the violent nature of the offense, Mr. Burch’s personal involvement in the offense, and his violent criminal history.
See §§ 3553(a)(1), (2)(A). Additionally , the district court considered that the time

Case: 15-14305 Date Filed: 04/03/2017 Page: 5 of 66 remaining was necessary to provide just punishment and to deter criminal conduct and stated that it generally does not consider conduct of a defendant while imprisoned because it woul d have to consider the good and the bad in the absence of relia b le documentation

. T he district court’s decision to focus less on Mr. Burch’s post

- sentencing
conduct is not an abuse of discretion because the record, as a whole, demonstrated that the court considered and applied the § 3553(a ) factors

. See Williams , 557 F.3d
at 1256. T he district court reasoned that the courses Mr. Burch had completed did not outweigh the serious nature of his offense and the need to protect the public. Mr. Burch therefore has not established that the dis trict court applied the wr ong legal standard, failed to follow the proper procedure s , or abused its discretion i n its consideration of the § 3553(a) factor s . IV
Because t he denial of Mr. Burch’s § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction was within the district court’s discreti on and properly followed
consideration of the § 3553(a) factors , we affirm the district court’s ruling

. AFFIRMED. Case: 15-14305 Date Filed: 04/03/2017 Page: 6 of 6