[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-11012

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:05-cr-00066-BAE-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GEORGE L. CRAY,

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________

(February 14, 2013)

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

George Cray, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his 

motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Cray argues 

Case: 12-11012 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 Page: 1 of 5 
2

that the district court erred in denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion because it 

considered the pre-sentencing factors pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), but failed to 

consider his post-sentencing rehabilitation efforts. Finding no abuse of discretion, 

we affirm.

We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of motion to

reduce a sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Smith, 568 F.3d 923, 

926 (11th Cir. 2009). Section 3582(c)(2) provides that “in the case of a defendant 

who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range 

that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission . . . [a district 

court] may reduce the term of imprisonment.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (emphasis 

supplied). A modification is permitted only “if such a reduction is consistent with 

applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” Id. 

In deciding a § 3582(c)(2) motion, “the court must recalculate the sentence 

under the amended guidelines, first determining a new base level by substituting 

the amended guideline range for the originally applied guideline range, and then 

using that new base level to determine what ultimate sentence it would have 

imposed.” United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780 (11th Cir. 2000). The court 

must then decide, in its discretion and after analyzing the § 3553(a) factors, 

whether to impose the amended sentence or retain the original sentence. Id. at 781. 

Case: 12-11012 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 Page: 2 of 5 
3

We have expressly rejected the suggestion that a district court is required to reduce 

a defendant’s sentence pursuant to § 3582(c). See United States v. Vautier, 144 

F.3d 756, 760 (11th Cir. 1998). 

The Sentencing Guidelines provide that, where a defendant’s applicable 

guideline range has been lowered after the defendant’s sentencing, “the court may

reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment as provided by 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2).” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1) (emphasis added). The application notes 

to that provision state that “the court shall consider the [§ 3553(a) factors] in 

determining: (I) whether a reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment is 

warranted; and (II) the extent of such reduction.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, cmt. 

n.1(B)(i). We have held that a district court “commits no reversible error by 

failing to articulate specifically the applicability—if any—of each of the section 

3553(a) factors, as long as the record demonstrates that the pertinent factors were 

taken into account by the district court.” Smith, 568 F.3d at 927 (internal quotation 

marks omitted); see United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir. 2005)

(“[N]othing . . . requires the district court to state on the record that it has explicitly 

considered each of the § 3553(a) factors or to discuss each of the § 3553(a) 

factors.”). The guideline application notes further explain that “[t]he court may 

consider post-sentencing conduct of the defendant that occurred after imposition of 

Case: 12-11012 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 Page: 3 of 5 
4

the original term of imprisonment in determining” whether a reduction is 

warranted or the extent of any such reduction. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, cmt. n.1(B)(iii). 

Nothing, however, requires the court to consider post-sentencing conduct. See id.

Turning to the case at hand, we discern no error in the district court’s denial 

of Cray’s § 3582(c)(2) motion. Section 3582(c)(2) and its accompanying 

guideline, U.S.S.G § 1B1.10(a)(1), make quite clear that the district court wields

discretion to decide whether to lower a defendant’s term of imprisonment where 

the guideline range is subsequently lowered as the result of an amendment to the 

guidelines. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1). The record 

reflects that district court properly considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors in 

denying Cray’s motion. Indeed, the court explicitly stated that “pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a), . . . [Cray’s sentence] should remain at 118 months.” And while 

the court did not specifically enumerate the factors upon which it relied, the district 

judge discussed the nature and circumstances of Cray’s offense when he remarked 

that Cray’s offense involved a substantial quantity of crack cocaine. Further, the 

district judge considered the history and circumstances of the offender, because he 

remarked that Cray had been given several opportunities to change his life when he 

had been sentenced to probation rather than incarceration for two prior felony drug 

convictions. Finally, and with regard to the argument that the district court did not 

Case: 12-11012 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 Page: 4 of 5 
5

adequately consider Cray’s post-conviction conduct, we simply note that nothing 

requires it to. See United States v. Williams, 557 F.3d 1254, 1256 (11th Cir. 2009) 

(per curiam) (explaining that the district must consider the § 3553(a) factors, and 

may consider the defendant’s post-sentencing conduct, in ruling on a § 3582(c)(2) 

motion). The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 12-11012 Date Filed: 02/14/2013 Page: 5 of 5