[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-12014

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:02-cr-00008-BAE-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM ERIC GREEN, 

a.k.a. Cuzzo, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________

(November 5, 2014)

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 12-12014 Date Filed: 11/05/2014 Page: 1 of 6 
2

William Green, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence. Green contends that he is 

entitled to a reduced sentence based on Amendment 750 to the sentencing 

guidelines and that, under the law of the case doctrine, the district court was 

required to grant a sentence reduction under Amendment 750 because it had 

granted one earlier under Amendment 706. 

I.

On November 4, 2002, Green pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to 

possess with the intent to distribute and conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and one count of carrying a firearm during and in 

relation to a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). 

Based on a total offense level of 341 and a criminal history category of V,2 Green’s 

advisory guidelines range for the drug offense was 235 to 240 months. The district 

court imposed a sentence at the high end of the advisory guidelines (240 months) 

and added the mandatory minimum 60 months for the firearms offense, for a total 

sentence of 300 months imprisonment. 

 1 At sentencing, Green objected to the drug quantity determination of 567 grams, and the 

district court overruled the objection. Green appealed his sentence and challenged the drug 

quantity determination and we affirmed. United States v. Green, 87 F. App’x 712 (11th Cir. 

2012) (Table).

2 Green’s criminal history included convictions for possession of cocaine, aggravated assault, 

aggravated battery, robbery by intimidation, obstruction of an officer, and possession of a sawedoff shotgun.

Case: 12-12014 Date Filed: 11/05/2014 Page: 2 of 6 
3

On March 12, 2008, Green filed his first § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his 

sentence, asserting generally that amendments to the sentencing guidelines 

provided a basis for relief. In granting Green’s motion, the district court 

determined that Amendment 706 — which reduced the base offense levels for 

crimes involving crack cocaine — applied to Green’s case retroactively. The court 

reduced Green’s total offense level to 32, calculated an amended advisory 

guidelines range of 188 to 235 months, and re-sentenced Green to 235 months plus 

60 months for the firearms offense, for a total sentence of 295 months. Green 

moved for reconsideration of the extent of the reduction and the district court 

denied the motion. This Court affirmed. United States v. Green, 347 F. App’x 420 

(11th Cir. 2009). 

On December 6, 2011, Green filed his second § 3582(c)(2) motion, asserting 

that his sentence should be reduced under Amendment 750, which altered the crack 

cocaine quantity tables listed in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). In deciding Green’s motion, 

the district court acknowledged that Amendment 750 reduced Green’s total offense 

level to 30 and his advisory guidelines range to 151 to 188 months. Nonetheless, 

the court found that a sentence reduction was not appropriate, reasoning as follows: 

A review of this defendant’s record plainly shows that the 295-month 

sentence he is presently serving is richly deserved. The defendant was 

attributed with over .5 kilogram of crack cocaine, which he stashed in 

or sold from at least three residences. Numerous firearms were 

stashed at these homes as well, including several assault weapons. The 

homes in which these firearms were found were occupied by, and/or 

Case: 12-12014 Date Filed: 11/05/2014 Page: 3 of 6 
4

frequented by, several children. This defendant was deeply immersed 

in drug trafficking and it is clear that the public needs to be protected 

from him as long as possible.

The court denied Green’s motion. The court also denied his motion for 

reconsideration, noting that its previous order had “made plain [the court’s] 

perception that [Green] is a dangerous individual, from whom the public should be 

protected as long as possible, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” 

This is Green’s appeal.

II.

We review only for abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction. United States v. Webb, 565 F.3d 

789, 792 (11th Cir. 2009).

When the Sentencing Commission makes retroactive changes to the 

sentencing guidelines under 28 U.S.C. § 994(o), a district court has discretion to 

reduce any sentence that was imposed “based on” the unaltered guidelines. 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Before granting such a reduction, however, the district court 

must engage in a two-part analysis. United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780 

(11th Cir. 2000). First, the court must recalculate the sentence under the amended 

guidelines. See id. Second, the court must “decide whether, in its discretion, it 

will elect to impose the newly calculated sentence under the amended guidelines or 

retain the original sentence.” Id. at 781. This decision should take into account the 

Case: 12-12014 Date Filed: 11/05/2014 Page: 4 of 6 
5

statutory factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), which include the nature and 

circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, and 

the need to protect the public. See United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 787–88 

(11th Cir. 2005) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)). The court is not required to discuss 

every § 3553(a) factor as long as the record reflects that the pertinent factors were 

considered. United States v. Williams, 557 F.3d 1254, 1256 (11th Cir. 2009). 

Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Green’s 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion. The court followed the two-part analysis, first correctly 

calculating Green’s sentence under the amended guidelines and then considering 

whether to impose a new sentence or retain the original sentence. The court cited 

the § 3553(a) factors and explained that its decision to retain the original sentence 

was influenced by the amount of cocaine involved in the offense, the number and 

type of weapons found in the drug houses (all of which were occupied by 

children), the fact that Green was “deeply immersed in drug trafficking,” and the 

need to protect the public. Those are all valid sentencing considerations, and this 

Court will not second-guess them. See United States v. Langston, 590 F.3d 1226, 

1237 (11th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be accorded any given § 3553(a) factor is a 

matter committed to the sound discretion of the district court, and we will not 

substitute our judgment in weighing the relevant factors.”) (quotation marks 

omitted). 

Case: 12-12014 Date Filed: 11/05/2014 Page: 5 of 6 
6

Also, the district court was not required by the law of the case doctrine to 

grant Green’s second § 3582(c)(2) motion simply because it granted his first. The 

law of the case doctrine, which prevents relitigation of an issue that has been 

decided at an earlier stage of the same proceeding,3 has no application where, as 

here, a defendant seeks a second sentence reduction based on a different

amendment to the sentencing guidelines. Cf. United States v. Vautier, 144 F.3d 

756, 762 (11th Cir. 1998) (“[T]he district court’s discretionary decision to depart 

from the amended guidelines range is not dictated or mandated by either its prior 

decision to depart or the extent of the prior departure.”). The district court did not 

abuse its discretion when it decided that a further reduction of Green’s sentence 

was not warranted. 

AFFIRMED.

 3 See United States v. Tamayo, 80 F.3d 1514, 1520 (11th Cir. 1996).

Case: 12-12014 Date Filed: 11/05/2014 Page: 6 of 6