Court Opinion

ID: 9964237
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-29 15:01:02.566218+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:14.678387
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11999    Document: 24-1     Date Filed: 04/29/2024   Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-11999
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       DEMETRIUS GERMAINE KENNEDY,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 1:02-cr-00043-AW-GRJ-3
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11999     Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 04/29/2024    Page: 2 of 6

       2                      Opinion of the Court                22-11999

       Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Demetrius Germaine Kennedy appeals the district court’s
       denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under section 404 of
       the First Step Act. We affirm.
              Kennedy is serving a thirty year prison sentence for traffick-
       ing cocaine. Despite his young age of twenty-two at the time of his
       arrest, Kennedy had amassed an expansive criminal record.
       Among other things, he’d been convicted of grand theft, armed
       robbery with a firearm, and the sale of marijuana. He’d also threat-
       ened a woman he suspected was a government informant.
              Once in prison, Kennedy’s behavior didn’t improve. He
       racked up dozens of disciplinary infractions, including entries for
       fighting, drug or alcohol possession, engaging in sexual acts, dis-
       ruptive conduct, destruction of property, tampering with security
       devices, threats, and assault.
             After numerous unsuccessful efforts to reduce his sentence,
       Kennedy moved for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act.
       He argued that: (1) his sentence—which was the mandatory mini-
       mum at the time of his conviction—exceeded the minimum avail-
       able under current law; (2) the sentencing judge erred in finding
       him responsible for twenty kilograms of cocaine, when the jury
       had found him guilty of conspiring to distribute only fifty grams of
       cocaine base; and (3) he had a supportive family, expressed re-
       morse, and improved himself while incarcerated by taking classes.
USCA11 Case: 22-11999      Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 04/29/2024    Page: 3 of 6

       22-11999               Opinion of the Court                         3

       He did acknowledge that his disciplinary record wasn’t “squeaky
       clean” and that he’d struggled with drug addiction but stated that
       he’d been drug free for some time.
              The government responded that the relevant facts and fac-
       tors weighed against granting a sentence reduction. Specifically, it
       argued that: (1) Kennedy was responsible for a large quantity of
       cocaine and cocaine base and had threatened a woman he thought
       had spoken with the Drug Enforcement Administration; (2) he had
       an extensive criminal history; (3) notwithstanding the new manda-
       tory minimum, based on his sentencing factors, his guideline range
       would remain the same as before if Kennedy had committed the
       crimes today; and (4) despite Kennedy’s steps to educate himself,
       he had a long history of misbehavior in prison, as demonstrated by
       the full disciplinary record the government attached to its re-
       sponse.
              The district court denied Kennedy’s motion. Although it
       found that he was eligible for a reduction under section 404, it ob-
       served that: (1) Kennedy’s underlying crimes were serious, and the
       amount of cocaine for which he was responsible far exceeded the
       adjusted statutory thresholds under both the law at the time of his
       sentencing and current law; (2) this conduct was worsened by his
       threatening a witness; (3) he had a long criminal history and a bad
       prison disciplinary record; and (4) his guideline range, if calculated
       today, would remain thirty years to life. All of this, the district
       court determined, weighed against a reduction.
USCA11 Case: 22-11999      Document: 24-1     Date Filed: 04/29/2024     Page: 4 of 6

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 22-11999

              The district court also noted that certain factors weighed in
       favor of granting a sentence reduction—namely: (1) Kennedy’s ed-
       ucational pursuits, (2) his expressed remorse, and (3) the young age
       at which he was convicted. Ultimately, though, the district court
       found that these mitigating factors didn’t outweigh the aggravating
       ones.
              On appeal, Kennedy argues that the district court considered
       impermissible information in reaching its decision and failed to ad-
       equately consider his rehabilitation. Specifically, he contends that:
       (1) under United States v. Alleyne, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), the district
       court erred in considering the twenty kilograms of cocaine at-
       tributed to him at sentencing, because the jury had found him re-
       sponsible for only fifty grams of cocaine base; (2) the district court
       failed to properly consider his rehabilitation while incarcerated;
       and (3) the district court erred by referring to his disciplinary his-
       tory, which he asserts wasn’t entered into the record, and by ruling
       without all of the relevant information.
               We review the denial of an eligible defendant’s request for a
       reduced sentence under the First Step Act for abuse of the district
       court’s “broad discretion.” Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct.
       2389, 2404 (2022). “A district court abuses its discretion when it
       applies an incorrect legal standard or makes a clear error of judg-
       ment.” United States v. Stevens, 997 F.3d 1307, 1312 (11th Cir. 2021).
       “Section 404(c) of the First Step Act confers particular discretion,
       clarifying that the Act does not require a court to reduce any sen-
       tence.” Concepcion, 142 S. Ct. at 2404 (quotation omitted). The
USCA11 Case: 22-11999      Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 04/29/2024     Page: 5 of 6

       22-11999                Opinion of the Court                         5

       district court “may consider evidence of a defendant’s rehabilita-
       tion since his prior sentencing,” as well as “postsentencing evidence
       of violence or prison infractions” and any other “intervening
       changes of law or fact in exercising [its] discretion to reduce a sen-
       tence pursuant to the First Step Act.” Id. at 2399, 2401, 2404. We
       may not substitute our judgment for that of the district court re-
       garding the appropriateness of a particular sentence. Id. at 2404.
       “[W]hen deciding a First Step Act motion, district courts bear the
       standard obligation to explain their decisions and demonstrate that
       they considered the parties’ arguments.” Id. The statute requires
       only that the “district court . . . demonstrate that it has considered
       the arguments before it”—not to make a “point-by-point rebuttal
       of the parties’ arguments.” Id. at 2405.
               We conclude that the district court didn’t abuse its broad
       discretion by declining to reduce Kennedy’s sentence under the
       First Step Act. First, the district court didn’t err in considering the
       drug quantities for which it found Kennedy responsible. True, in
       Alleyne, the Supreme Court held that any fact which increases the
       mandatory minimum is an “element” that must be submitted to a
       jury. 570 U.S. at 116. But in the wake of Alleyne, we held that “a
       district court may continue to make guidelines calculations based
       upon judicial fact findings and may enhance a sentence—so long as
       its findings do not increase the statutory maximum or minimum
       authorized by facts determined in a guilty plea or jury ver-
       dict.” United States v. Charles, 757 F.3d 1222, 1225 (11th Cir. 2014).
       Accordingly, the district court was within its discretion to consider
USCA11 Case: 22-11999      Document: 24-1     Date Filed: 04/29/2024     Page: 6 of 6

       6                      Opinion of the Court                 22-11999

       as relevant the drug quantities attributed to Kennedy at sentencing.
       See id.; Concepcion, 142 S. Ct. at 2398.
               Second, the district court didn’t fail to consider Kennedy’s
       rehabilitation argument; instead, it specifically discussed his reha-
       bilitation, pointing to his continued education in prison and expres-
       sion of remorse as mitigating factors weighing in favor of a sen-
       tence reduction. Although Kennedy may believe that the district
       court didn’t place enough weight on this factor, it met its duty to
       consider his arguments, and we may not substitute our judgment
       for that of the district court. See Concepcion, 142 S. Ct. at 2404–05.
              Finally, Kennedy’s arguments that the district court erred by
       considering his disciplinary history and by ruling without all the
       necessary information in the record are meritless. But the Supreme
       Court has said that district courts may consider “prison infractions”
       as part of the discretionary decision to reduce a sentence under the
       First Step Act. See id. at 2395. And everything was in the record.
       Kennedy submitted certain documents in support of his motion,
       and the government entered his disciplinary record and transcript
       into the record before the district court issued its ruling. Accord-
       ingly, we affirm.
             AFFIRMED.