[DO NOT PUBLISH]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 1999, 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 3
2

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. Twenty years later, Frazier moved to

reduce his sentence under the First Step Act of 2018. The district court denied his 

motion. Though the court held that Frazier qualified for a reduction, it declined to

exercise its discretion to reduce his sentence after considering the sentencing 

factors 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 3
3

should consider, among other things, the nature and circumstances of the offense 

and the history and characteristics of the defendant. See id. § 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). The weight given to any § 3553(a) factor is “committed to the 

sound 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

distributor, the head of a drug-trafficking organization, and had murdered a fifteenyear-old boy. Given these circumstances, the court fairly concluded that Frazier’s 

current sentence was sufficient, but not greater than necessary, “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