[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-14883

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:08-cr-00204-LSC-TMP-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 versus

JAMES WILLIE ASKEW, III, 

a.k.a. Q, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

________________________

(May 31, 2018)

Before MARCUS, ROSENBAUM and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 17-14883 Date Filed: 05/31/2018 Page: 1 of 9 
2

James Willie Askew, III appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his 240-month sentence. The district court 

determined that Askew was eligible for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 

782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, but determined, in the exercise of its discretion, 

that a sentence reduction was not appropriate in Askew’s case. After careful 

review, we affirm the district court’s denial of Askew’s § 3582(c)(2) motion.

1

 

I. BACKGROUND FACTS 

A. Original Sentence

A jury convicted Askew and his codefendant of conspiring to possess 50 

grams or more of cocaine base with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§§ 841(a)(1) and 846. At sentencing, the district court calculated an advisory 

guidelines range of 97 to 121 months imprisonment, but because Askew was 

subject to a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence, his final guidelines range was 

120 to 121 months. 

The district court varied upward to and sentenced Askew to 240 months’ 

imprisonment. The district court noted that Askew had recently received a total 

120-month sentence in a separate federal case (for possessing crack cocaine with 

intent to distribute and using or carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking 

 1

We review the district court’s decision whether to grant a sentence reduction under 

§ 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Smith, 568 F.3d 923, 926 (11th Cir. 

2009). 

Case: 17-14883 Date Filed: 05/31/2018 Page: 2 of 9 
3

offense). The district court stated that the instant 240-month sentence was to run 

consecutive to that and any other sentence. In explaining the upward variance, the 

district court said:

It is clear to me that you had quite a drug operation going on. 

And I don’t want to say I don’t want to waste my breath, but I think 

you are fully aware that you were exchanging the lives of other people 

for your own profit, and that’s regrettable. I don’t think the guidelines 

sufficiently reach the level that you should be punished for this 

offense or accomplish the sentencing goals set forth in the federal 

statutes.

After Askew objected to the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, the district 

court stated “for the record” that it had “just sentenced [Askew’s] co-defendant to 

240 months as well,” and “it is apparent to me that she is pitiful, and that this 

fellow right here had all - - he is obviously smart, obviously got a lot on the ball, 

and I think that the guideline range just isn’t sufficient, didn’t sufficiently indicate 

the appropriate punishment that he should receive.” In its statement of reasons, the 

district court further stressed that Askew was smarter and more capable than his 

“pitiful” co-defendant, who also received a 240-month sentence, and that “[t]his 

was a large drug operation and [Askew] ruined many lives for his benefit.” 

B. Direct Appeal

On direct appeal, this Court affirmed Askew’s conviction and sentence, 

concluding, inter alia, that the district court’s 119-month upward variance was 

substantively reasonable. United States v. Finch, 359 F. App’x 976, 983 (11th Cir. 

Case: 17-14883 Date Filed: 05/31/2018 Page: 3 of 9 
4

2010). This Court noted that: (1) the evidence adduced at trial established that 

Askew maintained control over a crack house at which numerous individuals 

bought, sold, and used crack cocaine, and that Askew sold and used crack cocaine 

himself; (2) Askew had prior convictions for possession of cocaine with intent to 

distribute and using or carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking offense; (3) had 

Askew’s prior convictions become final before he committed the instant 

conspiracy offense, he would have subject to the same 240-month mandatory 

minimum as his codefendant; and (4) Askew’s military, work, and family history 

weighed against a lower sentence because it showed he “had the capability and 

personal support to lead a legitimate lifestyle.” Id. at 983-84.

C. Section 3582(c)(2) Proceedings

In 2017, Askew filed this counseled § 3582(c)(2) motion based on 

Amendment 782, which reduced his base offense level from 30 to 26 and his initial 

advisory guidelines range to 63-78 months. Askew acknowledged, however, that 

he was still subject to the ten-year mandatory minimum, which meant his final 

advisory guidelines range was 120 months. Askew asked the district court to 

reduce his sentence to 120 months based on: (1) his good conduct in prison; and 

(2) the fact that his co-defendant’s 240-month sentence had been commuted by 

President Obama and would now expire on January 19, 2019, removing one of the 

reasons for Askew’s upward variance. 

Case: 17-14883 Date Filed: 05/31/2018 Page: 4 of 9 
5

The district court denied Askew’s § 3582(c)(2) motion, stating that it had 

considered Askew’s motion, the policy statement set forth in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, 

and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The district court determined that Askew was 

subject to a previous guidelines range of 120 to 121 months, and an amended 

guideline range of 120 months. The district court concluded that “[a] sentence of 

240 months remains appropriate for this defendant based upon his conduct in this 

case and the need to protect the public from further crimes by the defendant.” The 

district court further stated:

The [c]ourt has considered each of the sentencing factors at 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a). In determining whether and to what extent a reduction is 

warranted, in the interest of public safety, the court has considered the 

nature and seriousness of any danger the defendant might present to 

any person or to the community. Also, in making its determination, 

the court has considered the information contained in the presentence 

report, the Statement of Reasons, []as well as the defendant’s postsentencing conduct. Further, in making its determination, the court 

has used the guideline range determined pursuant to § 1B1.1(a), which 

was determined before consideration of departures and/or variances. 

II. SECTION 3582(c)(2) REDUCTIONS

A district court may modify a defendant’s term of imprisonment if the 

defendant was sentenced based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been 

lowered by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Any reduction, 

however, must be consistent with the Sentencing Commission’s policy statements, 

which are set out in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. Id. 

Case: 17-14883 Date Filed: 05/31/2018 Page: 5 of 9 
6

The district court applies a two-step approach in deciding whether to reduce

a defendant’s sentence under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Vautier, 144 F.3d 756, 

760 (11th Cir. 1998). First, the district court must determine the amended 

guidelines range that would have applied to the defendant if the retroactive 

amendment had been in effect at the time the defendant was sentenced. U.S.S.G. 

§ 1B1.10(b)(1); United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780 (11th Cir. 2000). 

Second, the district court must decide whether to exercise its discretion to impose 

the newly calculated sentence under the amended Guidelines or retain the original 

sentence. Bravo, 203 F.3d at 781. In exercising its discretion whether to reduce a 

defendant’s sentence, the district court must consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

factors and the nature and severity of the danger to any person posed by a sentence 

reduction, and it may consider the defendant’s post-sentencing conduct. U.S.S.G. 

1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B); Smith, 568 F.3d at 927. 

With respect to the statutory factors, the district court is required to consider, 

among other factors: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense; (2) the 

history and characteristics of the defendant; (3) the need for the sentence “to reflect 

the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just 

punishment”; (4) the need for adequate deterrence; (5) the need to protect the 

public from further crimes; (6) the guideline range; and (7) any pertinent policy 

Case: 17-14883 Date Filed: 05/31/2018 Page: 6 of 9 
7

statement from the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2), 

(a)(4)(A), (a)(5). 

The district court is not required to state how each factor applies to the 

defendant’s case if the record shows that it considered the pertinent § 3553(a) 

factors. Smith, 568 F.3d at 927. That is, the district court is not required to 

“present particular findings on each individual factor listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553,” 

so long as it is clear the district court considered those factors and set forth 

adequate reasons for its refusal to reduce the defendant’s sentence. United States 

v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1254, 1255-56 (11th Cir. 1997) (affirming the denial of a 

sentence reduction where the district court mentioned the scope of the crackcocaine conspiracy, the defendant’s significant involvement, and his lack of 

remorse or acceptance of responsibility). The district court has discretion to 

determine how much weight to afford a specific § 3553(a) factor. United States v. 

Alvarado, 808 F.3d 474, 496 (11th Cir. 2015).

III. ASKEW’S ARGUMENTS ON APPEAL

Askew argues that the district court abused its discretion by unreasonably 

balancing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Specifically, Askew argues that 

President Obama’s commutation of his co-defendant’s 240-month sentence, 

Askew’s age, and intervening changes in the policies underlying federal “crack” 

cocaine sentencing all weigh in favor of a substantial sentence reduction. 

Case: 17-14883 Date Filed: 05/31/2018 Page: 7 of 9 
8

Here, Askew has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in 

weighing the § 3553(a) factors. The record shows that the district court followed 

the proper two-step procedure, first determining that Askew was subject to a 

previous advisory guidelines range of 120-121 months, and an amended guidelines 

range of 120 months after Amendment 782. Second, in determining that a 

sentence reduction was not warranted in Askew’s case, the district court explicitly 

stated that it had considered Askew’s motion and the § 3553(a) factors and 

specifically referenced several factors that weighed against a sentence reduction. 

In particular, the district court concluded that a 240-month sentence remained 

appropriate in light of the seriousness of Askew’s offense conduct and the need to 

protect the public from further crimes by Askew. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A), 

(C).

The district court’s explanation is consistent with its determinations at 

Askew’s original sentencing that the advisory guidelines range of 120-121 months 

did not “sufficiently reach the level that [Askew] should be punished for this 

offense” and that Askew, who was “obviously smart,” and “had quite a drug 

operation going on,” had “exchang[ed] the lives of other people for [his] own 

profit.” It was within the district court’s discretion to give greater weight to these 

factors in denying Askew’s § 3582(c)(2) motion.

Case: 17-14883 Date Filed: 05/31/2018 Page: 8 of 9 
9

Further, the district court was not required to explicitly address either the 

commutation of his co-defendant’s sentence, which Askew raised in his 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion, or Askew’s age and recent changes to the sentencing laws, 

which Askew did not raise in his § 3582(c)(2) motion.

2

 See Smith, 568 F.3d at 

927; Brown, 104 F.3d at 1255-56. The record clearly demonstrates that the district 

court considered Askew’s mitigation arguments in his § 3582(c)(2) motion and the 

pertinent § 3553(a) factors and that the district court set forth adequate reasons for 

its decision to deny Askew’s request for a sentence reduction.

Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

Askew’s § 3582(c)(2) motion. 

AFFIRMED.

 2

We nonetheless note that the President’s commutation of his co-defendant’s sentence did 

not require the district court to reduce Askew’s sentence to avoid an unwarranted sentence 

disparity. 

Case: 17-14883 Date Filed: 05/31/2018 Page: 9 of 9