Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    64 views4 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded the district court's denial of Jeremiah Teague's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 750 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Amendment 750 reduced Teague's offense level, lowering his Guidelines range, but the district court incorrectly concluded he was not eligible for a reduction due to the statutory minimum. The appellate court found the district court's conclusion was erroneous and remanded for further proceedings.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-02-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-7580

    Original Title

    United States v. Jeremiah Teague, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded the district court's denial of Jeremiah Teague's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 750 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Amendment 750 reduced Teague's offense level, lowering his Guidelines range, but the district court incorrectly concluded he was not eligible for a reduction due to the statutory minimum. The appellate court found the district court's conclusion was erroneous and remanded for further proceedings.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    64 views4 pages

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded the district court's denial of Jeremiah Teague's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 750 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Amendment 750 reduced Teague's offense level, lowering his Guidelines range, but the district court incorrectly concluded he was not eligible for a reduction due to the statutory minimum. The appellate court found the district court's conclusion was erroneous and remanded for further proceedings.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-7580

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JEREMIAH LAMAR TEAGUE, a/k/a Booper,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
    Richard L.
    Voorhees, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00022-RLV-CH-4)

    Submitted:

    January 24, 2013

    Decided:

    February 6, 2013

    Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Jeremiah Lamar Teague, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik,


    Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Asheville,
    North Carolina; Thomas A. OMalley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
    ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Jeremiah
    denial
    (2006)

    of

    Lamar

    sentence

    pursuant

    to

    Guidelines Manual.

    Teague

    reduction

    appeals

    Amendment

    under
    750

    the
    18

    to

    district

    U.S.C.

    the

    courts

    3582(c)(2)

    U.S.

    Sentencing

    The district court explained its decision by

    stating that [d]ue to the statutory mandatory minimum sentence


    required in this case, there is no change in the guidelines
    calculations.

    We disagree.

    For the reasons explained below,

    we vacate the courts order and remand for further proceedings.


    Teague

    pled

    guilty

    to

    conspiracy

    to

    possess

    with

    intent to distribute cocaine powder and cocaine base (crack),


    and

    three

    substantive

    responsible,
    crack.
    was

    36,

    for

    sentencing

    reduced

    which

    months.

    involving
    purposes,

    crack.
    for

    1.7

    He

    was

    held

    kilograms

    of

    His base offense level under the 2007 Guidelines Manual


    for

    offense level of 33.


    VI,

    counts

    gave

    him

    acceptance

    of

    responsibility

    to

    total

    Teague was in criminal history category


    an

    advisory

    Guidelines

    range

    of

    235-293

    Because Teague was subject to a twenty-year mandatory

    minimum, the range was narrowed to 240-293 months pursuant to


    5G1.1(c)(2). *

    USSG

    In

    2009,

    the

    district

    court

    reviewed

    Teagues sentence to determine whether he was eligible for a

    Teagues sentence was affirmed in August 2010.


    States v. Teague, 392 F. Appx 250 (4th Cir. 2010).

    United

    sentence reduction under 3582(c)(2) in light of Amendment 706


    and

    concluded

    that

    sentencing.

    In

    Amendment

    August

    706

    2012,

    the

    had

    been

    applied

    district

    at

    court

    his

    reviewed

    Teagues sentence to determine whether he was eligible for a


    sentence reduction in light of Amendment 750 and concluded that
    he was not.
    We review a district courts decision to grant or deny
    a 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion.
    Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 200 (4th Cir. 2010).

    United States v.
    The district court

    has the authority to modify a defendants term of imprisonment


    pursuant to 3582(c)(2) if the defendants sentence was based
    on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the
    Sentencing

    Commission

    Guidelines

    amendment.

    through
    18

    1B1.10(a)(1) (2012).

    retroactively

    U.S.C.

    applicable

    3582(c)(2);

    see

    USSG

    The court abuses its discretion if it

    relies on an erroneous legal premise.

    DIRECTV, Inc. v. Rawlins,

    523 F.3d 318, 323 (4th Cir. 2008).


    Amendment 750 reduced Teagues base offense level from
    36 to 34.
    cocaine

    See USSG 2D1.1(c)(3) (840 grams to 2.8 kilograms of

    base).

    3-level

    responsibility,

    Teagues

    revised

    Because

    in

    he

    was

    With

    criminal

    reduction
    total

    history

    Guidelines range was 188-235 months.


    statutorily

    required

    minimum

    offense

    category

    acceptance
    level

    VI,

    was

    his

    of
    31.

    revised

    Under 5G1.1(b), when the

    sentence
    3

    for

    is

    greater

    than

    the

    maximum

    of

    required

    the

    applicable

    minimum

    sentence

    guideline
    shall

    be

    range,
    the

    the

    statutorily

    guideline

    sentence.

    Therefore, after Amendment 750 was enacted and made retroactive,


    Teagues Guidelines range became 240 months.
    288-month

    sentence

    became

    sentence

    above

    Thus, Teagues
    the

    amended

    Guidelines range, rather than a sentence within the Guidelines


    range,

    as

    it

    was

    when

    the

    district

    court

    imposed

    it.

    The

    district courts conclusion that Amendment 750 does not provide


    a basis for a sentence reduction was therefore erroneous.
    Accordingly, we vacate the district courts order and
    remand for further proceedings.

    We dispense with oral argument

    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented


    in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    VACATED AND REMANDED

    You might also like