UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7188

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TONY TERRAIL DANIELS, a/k/a Two Tone,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, 

Senior District Judge. (5:10-cr-00327-H-2)

Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: January 21, 2016

Before KING, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tony Terrail Daniels, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tony Terrail Daniels appeals the district court’s order 

granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion seeking a 

sentence reduction under Amendment 782.* Because we conclude 

that the district court erred in calculating Daniels’ amended 

Guidelines range, we vacate and remand to the district court for 

further proceedings.

“We review a district court’s decision to reduce a sentence 

under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion and its ruling as to 

the scope of its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2) de novo.” 

United States v. Mann, 709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 2013). “We 

are obliged to accord substantial deference to a district 

court’s interpretation of its own judgment.” Id. at 305 

(brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). A district 

court abuses its discretion, however, “when it . . . relies on 

erroneous factual or legal premises, or commits an error of 

law.” United States v. Briley, 770 F.3d 267, 276 (4th Cir. 

2014) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 135 S. 

Ct. 1844 (2015).

Under § 3582(c)(2), a district court may reduce the term of 

imprisonment “of a defendant who has been sentenced . . . based 

 * Although the district court granted Daniels’ § 3582 

motion, the reduction granted by the court was less than the 

reduction sought by Daniels.
3

on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the 

Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Thus, 

“[e]ligibility for consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is 

triggered only by an amendment listed in subsection (d) that 

lowers the applicable guideline range.” U.S. Sentencing 

Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10, p.s., cmt. n.1(A) (2014). “In 

determining whether, and to what extent, a reduction in the 

defendant’s term of imprisonment . . . is warranted, the court 

[must] determine the amended guideline range that would have 

been applicable . . . if the [relevant] amendment[] . . . had 

been in effect at the time the defendant was sentenced.” USSG 

§ 1B1.10(b)(1), p.s.

Initially, we conclude that the court correctly determined 

that Daniels is eligible for a sentence reduction under 

Amendment 782, which lowered the base offense levels applicable 

to drug trafficking offenses. See USSG App. C Amend. 782. 

Daniels’ Guidelines range after the application of Amendment 782 

is 108 to 135 months’ imprisonment. The court, however, 

calculated an amended Guidelines range of 120 to 135 months’

imprisonment and reduced Daniels’ sentence to 120 months. 

The court originally sentenced Daniels after the effective 

date of the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA). Accordingly, the 

statutory minimum sentence for Daniels’ drug offense is 5 years’ 

imprisonment, not 10. Compare 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) (2012), 
4

with 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2006); see Dorsey v. United 

States, 132 S. Ct. 2321, 2335-36 (2012) (holding that FSA 

applies to defendants sentenced after effective date of August 

3, 2010). The court, therefore, erred in determining that the 

bottom of Daniels’ amended Guidelines range was 120 months’ 

imprisonment, rather than 108 months’ imprisonment. See USSG 

§ 5G1.1(c)(2). 

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s judgment and 

remand so that the court may reconsider the extent of Daniels’ 

sentence reduction under the properly calculated amended

Guidelines range. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

VACATED AND REMANDED