Court Opinion

ID: 9940583
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-14 20:00:52.202026+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:04.090742
License: Public Domain

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

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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: 2 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 mo-
       tion 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) fac-
       tors 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 con-
       duct. 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 omit-
       ted).
             A district court may modify a defendant’s term of imprison-
       ment if the defendant was sentenced based on a sentencing range
USCA11 Case: 23-11802       Document: 27-1       Date Filed: 02/14/2024       Page: 3 of 5

       23-11802                 Opinion of the Court                            3

       that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commis-
       sion. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Any reduction, however, must be con-
       sistent 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 per-
       son posed by a sentence reduction, and it may consider the defend-
       ant’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 of-
       fense; (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 per-
       tinent 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: 4 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 conspir-
       acy, the defendant’s significant involvement, and his lack of re-
       morse or acceptance of responsibility). The district court has dis-
       cretion 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 deny-
       ing Whiters’s § 3582(c)(2) motion. As the record reflects, the dis-
       trict 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 un-
       der § 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 at-
       tempt 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 codefend-
       ants, who had to “obtain clearance” from Whiters “before they
       could make any moves” in their negotiations with the dealer, a con-
       fidential informant; meeting and speaking directly with the confi-
       dential 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: 5 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 Whit-
       ers 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 inju-
       ries to women, and which indicated to the court that he was a “dan-
       ger 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 diffi-
       cult childhood, and still found that the § 3553(a) factors did not war-
       rant a reduction, which was well within its discretion to do. Al-
       varado, 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.