Court Opinion

ID: 9372100
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-17 20:00:37.995431+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:32.824812
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 20-14009    Document: 41-1     Date Filed: 02/17/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 20-14009
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       TREVIN NUNNALLY,
       a.k.a. Rick,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 5:05-cr-00045-MW-GRJ-1
USCA11 Case: 20-14009     Document: 41-1     Date Filed: 02/17/2023    Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court               20-14009

                           ____________________

           ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
                        UNITED STATES

       Before JILL PRYOR, LUCK, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
             The Supreme Court vacated and remanded our September
       27, 2021, opinion affirming the district court’s denial of Trevin
       Nunnally’s motion for sentence reduction pursuant to the First
       Step Act of 2018 for reconsideration in light of Concepcion v.
       United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389 (2022).
               In our original opinion, we noted that Nunnally acknowl-
       edged that the district court did not err in denying his motion be-
       cause our precedent in United States v. Jones, 962 F.3d 1290 (11th
       Cir. 2020), required the use of the “as if” framework outlined in
       that opinion. Specifically, that framework states that any reduction
       in sentence must be “as if sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing
       Act . . . were in effect at the time the covered offense was commit-
       ted” and means that the court cannot reduce a sentence where the
       movant received the lowest statutory penalty available to him un-
       der the Fair Sentencing Act. Nunnally received a sentence equal to
       the lowest statutory penalty under the Fair Sentencing Act and so
       we held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it
       denied his motion.
USCA11 Case: 20-14009     Document: 41-1     Date Filed: 02/17/2023   Page: 3 of 3

       20-14009              Opinion of the Court                       3

              After a Supreme Court remand, our court recently held that
       Concepcion did not abrogate the reasoning in Jones. United States
       v. Jackson, __ F.4th __, 2023 WL 1501638 (11th Cir. Feb. 3, 2023).
       Accordingly, we reinstated our prior opinion in Jackson, which fol-
       lowed Jones. Because the binding law in our circuit has not
       changed, we reinstate our prior decision and affirm the district
       court’s denial of relief.
       AFFIRMED.