Court Opinion

ID: 9367957
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-02 17:00:36.047154+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:04.362267
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11350    Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 02/02/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-11350
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       TREMAIN HAMILTON,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 3:08-cr-00061-LC-EMT-4
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11350     Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 02/02/2023    Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                22-11350

       Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Tremain Hamilton appeals the district court’s denial of his
       motion for a reduced sentence under § 404(b) of the First Step Act.
       The district court found that he was eligible for a sentence
       reduction but declined, in its discretion, to reduce the sentence.
       The court stated that it considered “the revised statutory ranges
       under the [First Step Act], the Sentencing Guidelines, and the
       sentencing factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” Guiding its
       discretion, the court relied on the fact that Hamilton already
       received a reduced sentence under Amendment 782 of the
       Sentencing Guidelines, and “the fact that Defendant’s participation
       in the drug conspiracy involved violence, a significant quantity of
       drugs, and the involvement of a minor.” These latter facts took on
       added importance, the court said, because Hamilton’s record is
       “littered with infractions for drugs, illicit monetary transactions,
       and unauthorized engagement in sexual acts.”
              We review a district court’s decision to deny a sentence
       reduction for abuse of discretion. United States v. Russell, 994 F.3d
       1230, 1239 (11th Cir. 2021). “A district court abuses its discretion
       when it applies an incorrect legal standard or makes a clear error of
       judgment.” United States v. Stevens, 997 F.3d 1307, 1312 (11th Cir.
       2021).
USCA11 Case: 22-11350     Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 02/02/2023    Page: 3 of 4

       22-11350               Opinion of the Court                        3

               The district court ruled on Hamilton’s motion prior to the
       Supreme Court’s decision in Concepcion v. United States, 142 S.
       Ct. 2389 (2022). That decision held that “the First Step Act requires
       district courts to consider intervening changes when parties raise
       them.” Id. at 2396. This includes intervening changes in law. Id.
       Hamilton argued to the district court that due to a separate
       (nonretroactive) change in the First Step Act, his prior conviction
       no longer supported a sentencing enhancement under 21 U.S.C.
       § 841(b)(1). Accordingly, if he were sentenced today, he would face
       a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years instead of twenty
       years. The district court acknowledged this argument but
       Eleventh Circuit precedent at the time prohibited consideration of
       intervening changes in the law other than those mandated by
       sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act when exercising
       discretion under § 404(b). See United States v. Taylor, 982 F.3d
       1295, 1302 (11th Cir. 2020), abrogated in part by Concepcion, 142
       S. Ct. at 2396. The district court’s order accordingly does not
       indicate whether the court understood that it was authorized to
       reduce the sentence of an otherwise-eligible defendant based on
       this intervening change in the law. We therefore vacate the
       judgment of the district court and remand this case for further
       consideration.
             Hamilton also challenges the district court’s finding that
       “Defendant’s participation in the drug conspiracy involved
       violence” as clearly erroneous. On appeal, the government does
       not refer to any record evidence that would support the court’s
USCA11 Case: 22-11350     Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 02/02/2023   Page: 4 of 4

       4                     Opinion of the Court                22-11350

       conclusion and instead argues that the violent acts of his co-
       conspirators should be attributed to Hamilton. But the district
       court’s finding was that Hamilton’s participation involved violence
       and there is no record evidence of Hamilton’s violence to support
       this conclusion. Accordingly, the district court also abused its
       discretion by relying on a clearly erroneous fact.
             VACATED and REMANDED.