[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-11802

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TEDRICK DIRELL WHITERS, 

a.k.a. Knight,

a.k.a. Kilo, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

USCA11 Case: 23-11802 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 02/14/2024 Page: 1 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 23-11802

D.C. Docket No. 4:12-cr-00009-MLB-WEJ-1

____________________

Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Tedrick Whiters appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on 

Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Whiters argues 

that the district court erred in weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors by giving too much weight to the seriousness of the offense 

and his past criminal history and failing to give enough weight to 

his history and characteristics as well as his post-conviction conduct. After thorough review, we affirm.

We review the district court’s decision of whether to grant 

a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion. 

United States v. Smith, 568 F.3d 923, 926 (11th Cir. 2009). A district 

court may abuse its discretion by failing to apply the proper legal 

standard or by failing to follow proper procedures. United States v. 

Jules, 595 F.3d 1239, 1241–42 (11th Cir. 2010). “When review is only 

for abuse of discretion, it means that the district court had a range 

of choice and that we cannot reverse just because we might have 

come to a different conclusion had it been our call to make.” United 

States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908, 912 (11th Cir. 2021) (quotations omitted).

A district court may modify a defendant’s term of imprisonment if the defendant was sentenced based on a sentencing range 

USCA11 Case: 23-11802 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 02/14/2024 Page: 2 of 5
23-11802 Opinion of the Court 3

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. Id. 

When the district court considers a § 3582(c)(2) motion, it must 

first recalculate the guideline range under the amended Guidelines. 

United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780 (11th Cir. 2000). Then, the 

court must decide whether to exercise its discretion to impose the 

newly calculated sentence under the amended Guidelines or retain 

the original sentence. Id. at 781. The court must consider the 

§ 3553(a) factors and the nature and severity of danger to any person posed by a sentence reduction, and it may consider the defendant’s post-sentencing conduct. Smith, 568 F.3d at 927. 

When imposing a sentence, a district court shall 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 statement from the Sentencing Commission. 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(4)(A), (a)(5). It 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. The court can demonstrate that it has considered the § 3553(a) 

factors by stating which factors weigh against granting a sentence 

reduction, even if it does not present particular findings for each 

individual factor. See United States v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1254, 1255–56 

USCA11 Case: 23-11802 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 02/14/2024 Page: 3 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 23-11802

(11th Cir. 1997) (affirming the denial of a sentence reduction where 

the district court mentioned the scope of the crack-cocaine 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 grant to a specific 

§ 3553(a) factor. United States v. Alvarado, 808 F.3d 474, 496 (11th 

Cir. 2015). 

Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Whiters’s § 3582(c)(2) motion. As the record reflects, the district court complied with the two-part procedure for analyzing § 

3582(c)(2) motions by determining that Whiters was eligible for a 

sentence reduction, but that the reduction was not warranted under § 3553(a). Bravo, 203 F.3d at 780–81. In so doing, the court

properly considered the § 3553(a) factors and noted which facts 

weighed against the sentence reduction. Smith, 568 F.3d at 927; 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

In particular, the district court explained that the underlying 

crime of conviction was “no ordinary drug deal,” but “was an attempt to rob a drug dealer and to use a firearm in doing so.” It 

found that Whiters “was at the heart of the conspiracy,” leading 

the drug transaction “from the start”; supervising two codefendants, who had to “obtain clearance” from Whiters “before they 

could make any moves” in their negotiations with the dealer, a confidential informant; meeting and speaking directly with the confidential informant; and driving his crew to the scene of the crime. 

The court added that even though Whiters did not physically 

USCA11 Case: 23-11802 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 02/14/2024 Page: 4 of 5
23-11802 Opinion of the Court 5

possess a firearm during the drug deal, he was the leader of the 

conspiracy and did not leave the scene when another codefendant 

pulled a firearm. It also noted that, while drug quantity played a 

role in the original Guidelines calculation, the seriousness of the 

offense drove the sentencing determinations, which is why Whiters was the only one of the codefendants to receive a heightened 

sentence.

Based on the seriousness of the offense, Whiters’s leadership 

role, the benefit from his plea bargain, and his criminal history --

including eleven prior convictions, several of which involved injuries to women, and which indicated to the court that he was a “danger to other people and in need of greater deterrence” -- the court 

found that the § 3553(a) factors did not warrant a reduction. It also 

expressly considered Whiters’s post-sentencing conduct and difficult childhood, and still found that the § 3553(a) factors did not warrant a reduction, which was well within its discretion to do. Alvarado, 808 F.3d at 496. On this record, the district court did not 

abuse its discretion in denying Whiters’s § 3582(c)(2) motion, and 

we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 23-11802 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 02/14/2024 Page: 5 of 5