Court Opinion

ID: 9411082
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-25 19:01:25.764401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:03.772108
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11913    Document: 24-1     Date Filed: 07/25/2023   Page: 1 of 8

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-11913
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       TYDEARAIN SMITH,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 8:07-cr-00025-JDW-AAS-1
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11913        Document: 24-1        Date Filed: 07/25/2023        Page: 2 of 8

       2                         Opinion of the Court                     22-11913

       Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Tydearain Smith appeals the district court’s denial of his mo-
       tion for a sentence reduction under § 404(b) of the First Step Act.
       After review of the parties’ briefs and the record, we conclude that
       the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Smith’s
       motion. We therefore affirm.1
                                             I
              In 2007, Mr. Smith was convicted of possession of 5 grams
       or more of crack cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21
       U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B), and the brandishing of a firearm in the com-
       mission of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
       924(c)(1)(A)(ii). The district court sentenced him to a term of 210
       months of imprisonment on the crack cocaine conviction, and a
       consecutive term of 84 months of imprisonment on the firearm
       conviction, followed by an eight-year term of supervised release.
       The district court subsequently reduced Mr. Smith’s sentence on
       the crack cocaine conviction, first to 168 months of imprisonment,
       and then to 135 months of imprisonment, based on Amendments
       706 and 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines.
            This is Mr. Smith’s second appeal related to the denial of his
       motion for a sentence reduction under § 404(b) of the First Step

       1 Because we write for the parties, and assume their familiarity with the rec-

       ord, we set out only what is necessary to explain our decision.
USCA11 Case: 22-11913      Document: 24-1       Date Filed: 07/25/2023     Page: 3 of 8

       22-11913                Opinion of the Court                          3

       Act. In Mr. Smith’s first appeal, we held that he was eligible for a
       sentence reduction under § 404(b) and that the district court should
       not have denied Mr. Smith’s motion without giving him the oppor-
       tunity to present his factual and legal arguments in support of relief.
       See United States v. Smith, 30 F.4th 1334, 1338–39 (11th Cir. 2022).
       We therefore reversed the district court’s order and remanded for
       further proceedings. See id. at 1339.
               On remand, the district court directed the parties to address
       Mr. Smith’s entitlement to a sentence reduction under the First
       Step Act. Mr. Smith then filed an unopposed motion requesting
       relief primarily due to his exemplary post-sentencing record. High-
       lighting his lack of disciplinary infractions and his successful pursuit
       of educational and work opportunities, Mr. Smith asked the district
       court to reduce his sentence to a total term of imprisonment of 185
       months or time served, whichever is greater, to be followed by six
       years’ supervised release.
              A few days after Mr. Smith filed his motion, the district court
       denied it without holding a hearing. The district court’s order
       acknowledged Mr. Smith’s argument, commended him on his
       post-sentencing conduct and success, but concluded that a sentence
       reduction was not warranted. The district court found that a sen-
       tence reduction would not promote respect for the law, encourage
       deterrence, or protect the public considering the nature and cir-
       cumstances of Mr. Smith’s underlying offense and the reasons his
       sentence was enhanced—including the brandishing of a firearm,
       the danger he posed to the arresting officer, and his perjury at trial.
USCA11 Case: 22-11913         Document: 24-1         Date Filed: 07/25/2023          Page: 4 of 8

       4                          Opinion of the Court                        22-11913

       After considering the factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the dis-
       trict court denied Mr. Smith’s motion.
               This appeal followed.2
                                              II
              “We review for abuse of discretion the denial of an eligible
       movant’s request for a reduced sentence under the First Step Act.”
       United States v. Jackson, 58 F.4th 1331, 1335 (11th Cir. 2023) (citation
       omitted).
                                              III
              Mr. Smith argues that the district court abused its discretion
       in denying his motion for relief under the First Step Act. See Ap-
       pellant’s Br. at 11. According to Mr. Smith, the district court’s or-
       der “did not adequately explain its sentencing decision for mean-
       ingful appellate review.” Id. at 12. Mr. Smith insists that the district
       court was “cursory,” “perfunctory,” and “did not provide enough
       analysis.” Id. at 22.
              We are unpersuaded by Mr. Smith’s arguments. The district
       court gave an adequate “brief statement of reasons” for the exercise

       2
        Although Mr. Smith has been released from custody, this appeal is not moot
       because he requested that the supervised-release portion of his sentence,
       which he is now serving, be reduced from eight years to six years. See United
       States v. Stevens, 997 F.3d 1307, 1310 n.1 (11th Cir. 2021) (recognizing that hav-
       ing an expired term of imprisonment does not render a challenge to the denial
       of a sentence reduction moot where the defendant is still serving supervised
       release and the appeal relates to that aspect of the sentence).
USCA11 Case: 22-11913      Document: 24-1       Date Filed: 07/25/2023     Page: 5 of 8

       22-11913                Opinion of the Court                          5

       of its discretion. See Concepcion v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 142
       S. Ct. 2389, 2404 (2022).
                                          A
               The First Step Act provides that a district court “may . . . im-
       pose a reduced sentence” if the movant is eligible for relief. First
       Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404(b), 132 Stat. 5194, 5222
       (emphasis added). “So a district court has the discretion to deny
       any eligible movant’s request for a reduced sentence.” United States
       v. Williams, 63 F.4th 908, 912 (11th Cir. 2023) (emphasis in original)
       (citing Jama v. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t, 543 U.S. 335, 346 (2005)).
       The First Step Act also provides that “[n]othing in this section shall
       be construed to require a court to reduce any sentence pursuant to
       this section.” Id. (alteration and emphasis in original) (internal quo-
       tation marks omitted). The Supreme Court has explained that “a
       district court is not required to modify a sentence for any reason.”
       Concepcion, 142 S. Ct. at 2402 (emphasis added). Instead, according
       to the Supreme Court, the First Step Act imposes on district courts
       only “the standard obligation to explain their decisions and demon-
       strate that they considered the parties’ arguments” in “a brief state-
       ment of reasons.” Id. at 2404.
              The district court here properly exercised its discretion in
       denying Mr. Smith’s motion for a sentence reduction under the
       First Step Act. The district court observed that Mr. Smith had not
       addressed any of the reasons that had accounted for his enhanced
       sentence—committing perjury at trial, brandishing a firearm, at-
       tempting to flee, and pointing a gun at the arresting officer. See
USCA11 Case: 22-11913      Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 07/25/2023     Page: 6 of 8

       6                      Opinion of the Court                  22-11913

       D.E. 156 at 2. The district court’s order specifically noted Mr.
       Smith’s post sentencing record, and “commended” him “for his
       post-sentencing conduct and success thus far.” Id. Although the
       district court acknowledged Mr. Smith’s argument that “the court
       should exercise its discretion to reduce his sentence based on his
       post-sentencing rehabilitation” and “the parties[’] agreement that a
       reduction [was] appropriate,” the district court was not persuaded
       by that argument. Id. The district court explained that, “[c]onsid-
       ering the nature and circumstances of [Mr. Smith’s] underlying of-
       fense, the reasons his sentence was enhanced, including the bran-
       dishing of a firearm, the danger he posed to the arresting officers,
       and his trial perjury, a sentence reduction would not promote re-
       spect for the law, promote deterrence, or protect the public.” Id.
       As such, the district court concluded that “[h]aving considered the
       factors in § 3553(a),” a sentence reduction was not “warranted”
       even though Mr. Smith is “eligible for relief under the First Step
       Act.” Id. at 2–3.
              In light of the explanation the district court provided in its
       order, which addressed Mr. Smith’s argument, commended him for
       his post-sentencing record, and considered and weighed the §
       3553(a) factors, we conclude that the district court provided a rea-
       sonable basis and adequate explanation for its decision. See Wil-
       liams, 63 F.4th at 912 (holding that the district court provided a rea-
       soned basis for its decision because it recounted the defendant’s ar-
       guments, weighed the § 3553 factors to guide its discretion, and ad-
       dressed the defendant’s notices of supplemental authority). “Nei-
       ther the First Step Act nor Concepcion requires more.” Id. See also
USCA11 Case: 22-11913       Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 07/25/2023      Page: 7 of 8

       22-11913                Opinion of the Court                           7

       Concepcion, 142 S. Ct. at 2404 (requiring only “a brief statement of
       reasons” that establishes that the district court considered the mo-
       vant’s arguments).
                                          B
              Mr. Smith takes issue with the district court’s alleged failure
       to “thoroughly assess[ ] [his] unopposed arguments in favor of a
       sentence reduction, backed up by supporting documents.” Appel-
       lant’s Br. at 12. But this argument fails. The district court consid-
       ered, and even “commended,” Mr. Smith’s post-sentencing accom-
       plishments—no disciplinary reports, completion of numerous edu-
       cational and vocational programs, completion of his GED and drug
       education treatment, and his continuous employment—but ulti-
       mately was not persuaded. See Concepcion, 142 S. Ct. at 2405 (“The
       First Step Act does not require a district court to be persuaded by
       the nonfrivolous arguments raised by the parties before it[.]”).
               Mr. Smith also takes issue with the length of the district
       court’s discussion and the brief time it took the district court to rule
       on his motion. See Appellant’s Br. at 11–12. According to Mr.
       Smith, the district court only spent three sentences discussing his
       argument and ruled on the motion four days after it was filed. See
       id. at 17, 19. Mr. Smith’s argument is unavailing. First, when exer-
       cising its discretion under the First Step Act, a district court’s expla-
       nation, just as in the initial sentencing context, “need not neces-
       sarily be lengthy, it just must make clear that the court had a rea-
       soned basis for choosing to reduce or to not reduce a defendant’s
       sentence under the First Step Act.” Stevens, 997 F.3d at 1317
USCA11 Case: 22-11913      Document: 24-1     Date Filed: 07/25/2023     Page: 8 of 8

       8                      Opinion of the Court                 22-11913

       (internal quotation marks omitted). Second, the district court that
       ruled on Mr. Smith’s § 404(b) motion was the same court that sat
       through Mr. Smith’s trial, sentenced him, and ruled on his first §
       404(b) motion, so its quick disposition is not necessarily a sign of
       lack of consideration but rather a reflection of its familiarity with
       the record.
               Mr. Smith further argues that the district court “mentioned
       the § 3553(a) factors without any explanation or elucidation, other
       than once again alluding to the same ‘alternate’ findings regarding
       the underlying offense.” Appellant’s Br. at 12. Mr. Smith’s argu-
       ment is unpersuasive because it ignores the crux of the district
       court’s analysis. As previously discussed, the district court specifi-
       cally relied on three of the § 3553(a) factors—promoting respect for
       the law, promoting deterrence, and protecting the public—but ul-
       timately concluded that they favored the denial of Mr. Smith’s re-
       quested sentence reduction. See D.E. 156 at 2. Although Mr. Smith
       might disagree with the weight the district court gave to the §
       3553(a) factors, “[t]he weight given to any specific § 3553(a) factor
       is committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” United
       States v. Croteau, 819 F.3d 1293, 1309 (11th Cir. 2016).
             In sum, the district court committed no error in denying Mr.
       Smith’s request for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act.
                                        IV
              We affirm the district court’s order denying Mr. Smith’s mo-
       tion for a reduction of his sentence under the First Step Act.
             AFFIRMED.