UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6167

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ADRIAN HOWARD JACKSON, a/k/a Dexter,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District 

Judge. (0:98-cr-01126-JFA-2)

Submitted: May 18, 2012 Decided: May 24, 2012 

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adrian Howard Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, 

Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Adrian Howard Jackson appeals from the district 

court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion 

for a reduction in sentence pursuant to Amendment 750 of the 

Sentencing Guidelines. The district court determined that 

Jackson was sentenced to the statutory mandatory minimum of 240 

months imprisonment and he was, therefore, not eligible for a 

reduction in sentence based on Amendment 750. For the reasons 

that follow, we vacate the district court’s order denying a 

reduction and remand for further consideration.

In 2000, Jackson was convicted by a jury of conspiracy 

to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine 

and cocaine base, in violation of Title 21 U.S.C.A.

§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), 846 (West 1999 & Supp. 2011) (Count 

One), and conspiracy to provide firearms for use during drug 

trafficking crimes, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), (o) (2006) (Count Two). 

In the presentence report (PSR), applying U.S. Sentencing 

Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(c)(1) (1998), the probation officer 

recommended a base offense level of 38 on Count One, based on 

more than 1.5 kilograms of crack. Coupled with a four-level 

adjustment for his role in the offense, Jackson’s total offense 

level was 42. With Jackson’s criminal history category at I, 

the probation officer calculated a Guidelines range of 360 

months to life imprisonment on Count One. However, because 
3

Jackson’s maximum statutory exposure was 240 months’ 

imprisonment, his Guidelines range became 240 months. Count Two 

mandated a 60-month consecutive sentence. Accordingly, the 

district court sentenced Jackson to 300 months’ imprisonment. 

In August 2005, the Government filed a motion pursuant 

to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) to reduce Jackson’s sentence based on 

his substantial assistance. The district court granted the 

motion and reduced Jackson’s sentence by 48 months (twenty 

percent), resulting in a sentence of 252 months’ imprisonment

(192 months on Count One and 60 months on Count Two). 

In November 2011, Jackson filed the subject 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence, seeking the 

benefit of Guideline Amendment 750, which recently lowered the 

base offense levels applicable to most offenses involving crack

cocaine. The district court denied Jackson’s motion on the 

ground that Jackson was sentenced to “the statutory mandatory 

minimum of 240 months’ imprisonment” and, therefore, “[w]hatever 

changes Amendment 750 might authorize in the underlying base 

offense level calculations, those Guideline changes cannot alter 

the ultimate statutory floor of 20 years imprisonment set by 

Congress.” In doing so, the district court erroneously 

converted the twenty-year ceiling applicable to Jackson into a 

floor. 
4

Under § 3582(c)(2), the district court may modify the 

term of imprisonment “of a defendant who has been sentenced 

. . . based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been 

lowered,” if the amendment is listed in the Guidelines as 

retroactively applicable. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In the 

context of Amendment 750, a defendant whose offense of 

conviction involved crack cocaine is eligible for a reduced 

sentence only if the amendment lowers the defendant’s applicable 

Guideline range. See United States v. Lindsey, 556 F.3d 238, 

244 (4th Cir. 2009). 

Under Amendment 750, the base offense level for 

offenses involving 1.5 kilograms or less of crack is now level 

34. Adding the four-level enhancement for his role in the 

offense, Jackson’s amended offense level is 38. His amended 

Guidelines range is 235-293 months; however, because of the 

statutory maximum of 240 months, his Guidelines range under the 

new amendment effectively becomes 235-240 months. USSG 

§ 2D1.1(c)(1) (2011). Application of Amendment 750 to Jackson 

results in a sentencing range that is lower than the range 

applicable before Amendment 750. Therefore, a reduction in 

Jackson’s sentence is authorized under § 3582(c)(2). 

In United States v. Stewart, 595 F.3d 197 (4th Cir. 

2010), we held that the “original term of imprisonment” means 

“the sentence the defendant is serving at the time he makes his 
5

section 3582(c)(2) motion.” Id. at 202. Thus, “when a 

defendant is serving a below-guidelines sentence as a result of 

a Rule 35 motion by the government, if the defendant makes a 

motion under section 3582(c)(2), his sentence may be further 

reduced comparable to the previous reduction received.” Id. at 

203. Here, the district court erroneously concluded that 

Jackson was serving a statutory mandatory minimum sentence as 

opposed to a statutory maximum sentence and, therefore, did not 

believe it had the authority to lower Jackson’s sentence. 

Because the district court mistakenly concluded that it was 

not so authorized, we vacate the district court’s order and 

remand to the district court for a determination of whether a

reduction should be applied in Jackson’s case.∗

 We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

 ∗ We determine in this opinion that a reduction is 

authorized; we express no opinion as to whether a reduction in 

Jackson’s sentence is warranted. See United States v. Stewart, 

595 F.3d 197, 200 (4th Cir. 2010) (providing that determination 

of whether to grant reduction of sentence authorized under 

Amendment 706 is within discretion of the district court judge); 

see also United States v. Fennell, 592 F.3d 506, 511 (4th Cir. 

2010) (noting remand allows the district court to exercise its 

discretion “to use any of the reasonable methods . . . to 

calculate a sentence comparable to that previously imposed, in 

light of the purpose and effect of Amendment 706”). 
6

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED