[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 19

- 13218 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 0:98

- cr
- 06155

- KMM

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee, versus CRAIG FRAZIER,
Defendant

- Appellant.

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

________________________ ( August 28, 2020 )
Before WILSON , BRANCH, and GRANT , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: This is a First Step Act case. In 199 9 , Craig Frazier pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute a detectable amount of crack cocaine, in violation of 21

Case: 19-13218 Date Filed: 08/28/2020 Page: 1 of 32 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846

. He stipulated in his plea agreement that he was responsible for more than 1.5 kilograms of cocaine base. The district court
sentenced him to 360 months’ imprisonment

— the low end of his guideline
range

— and five years of supervised release

. T wenty years later , Frazier moved to reduce his sentence under the First Step Act of 2018. The district court denied his
motion. T hough the court held that Frazier qualified for a reduction, it declined to
exercise its discretion to reduce his sentence after considering the sentencing
fact ors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). This is Frazier’s appeal. The parties agree that Frazier is eligible for a reduction under the framework
described in United States v. Jones , 962 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2020). The only question is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a reduction

. 1
We hold that it did not. A district court has wide discretion to grant or deny a motion to reduce a sentence under the First Step Act. See id. at 1304. In making its decision, the court may consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See id. at 1304. Under § 3553(a), a district court’s sentence must be sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to achieve the goals of sentencing

. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The court

1 Frazier also claims that the court committed legal error under Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), by failing to reconsider the drug

- quantity stipulation in his plea agreement. We rejected this argument in United States v. Jones , 962 F.3d 1290, 1302 (11th Cir. 2020). Frazier cannot use Apprendi “to redefine his offense for purposes of a First Step Act motion.” Id.

Case: 19-13218 Date Filed: 08/28/2020 Page: 2 of 33 should consider, among other things, the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant

. See i d

. § 3553(a)(1). It should
also consider whether the sentence “reflect [s] the seriousness of the offense ,”

“ promote [s] respect for the law, ” “ provide [s] just punishment for the offense,”
“afford [s] adequate deterrence , ” and “protect [s] the public from further crimes.”
Id. § 3553(a)(2). T he weight given to any § 3553(a) factor is “ committed to the

so und discretion of the district court. ” United States v. Croteau , 819 F.3d 1293, 1309 (11th Cir. 2016).
The district court here considered the § 3553(a) factors , noting that Frazier

was a career offender with a prior attempted murder conviction, a major narcotic
distributo r, the head of a drug

- trafficking organization , and had murdered a fifteen

year
- old boy. Given these circumstances, the court fairly concluded that Frazier’s current sentence was sufficient, but not greater than nece ssary , “ to reflect the seriousness of the instant offense, promote respect for the rule of law, afford adequate deterrence, and protect the public from further crimes

. ” See Doc. 510 at 3; see also 18 U.S.C § 3553(a) ; Croteau , 819 F.3d at 1309

. AFFIRMED. Case: 19-13218 Date Filed: 08/28/2020 Page: 3 of 3