USCA11 Case: 24-10759 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 01/14/2025 Page: 1 of 5

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-10759 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus TRENARD CALDWELL,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 0:18-cr-60127-WPD-1 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 24-10759 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 01/14/2025 Page: 2 of 5

Before BRANCH, BRASHER, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Trenard Caldwell, proceeding pro se, appeals the denial of his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

The Government, in turn, has moved for summary affirmance.

A district court may modify a defendant’s term of imprison- ment if the defendant was sentenced based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commis- sion. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). “This authority is limited to those guideline amendments listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c) that have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range.”

United States v. Williams, 557 F.3d 1254, 1256 (11th Cir. 2009) (ad- dressing § 1B1.10(c), now § 1B1.10(d) (quotation marks omitted)).

The applicable policy statement for § 3582(c)(2) motions is § 1B1.10. United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1256 (11th Cir. 2021).

In a motion for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2), a district court must engage in a two-step analysis, including deciding (1) whether a retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines lowered a defendant’s Guidelines range consistent with the appli- cable policy statements; and (2) whether, in its discretion, it should reduce the defendant’s sentence considering the § 3553(a) factors and whether the defendant poses a threat to the safety of the com- munity. See United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780-81 (11th Cir. USCA11 Case: 24-10759 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 01/14/2025 Page: 3 of 5

24-10759 Opinion of the Court 3 2000); Williams, 557 F.3d at 1256; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, com- ment. (n.1(B)(i)-(ii)).

In November 2023, Amendment 820 to the Sentencing Guidelines went into effect. See U.S. Sentencing Commission, Adopted Amendments (Effective November 1, 2023), Amendment 820.

In the Amendment, U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) (2021) was amended by in- serting after “1 additional level.” the following: The term ‘preparing for trial’ means substantive prep- arations taken to present the government’s case against the defendant to a jury (or judge, in the case of a bench trial) at trial. ‘Preparing for trial’ is ordinar- ily indicated by actions taken close to trial, such as preparing witnesses for trial, in limine motions, pro- posed voir dire questions and jury instructions, and witness and exhibit lists. Preparations for pretrial pro- ceedings (such as litigation related to a charging doc- ument, discovery motions, and suppression motions) ordinarily are not considered ‘preparing for trial’ un- der this subsection. Post-conviction matters (such as sentencing objections, appeal waivers, and related is- sues) are not considered ‘preparing for trial.’

U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) (2023). Additionally, the commentary to § 3E1.1 captioned “Application Notes” was amended in Note 6 by striking “The government should not withhold such a motion based on interests not identified in § 3E1.1, such as whether the defendant agrees to waive his or her right to appeal.” Compare USCA11 Case: 24-10759 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 01/14/2025 Page: 4 of 5

§ 3E1.1(b), comment (n.6) (2023). Amendment 820 did not alter the fact that a defendant can only receive a third acceptance of re- sponsibility point under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) if the defendant has al- ready received a two-level reduction under § 3E1.1(a). U.S.S.G.

§ 3E1.1(b).

The district court did not err or abuse its discretion in deny- ing Caldwell’s motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to Amend- ment 820. 1 First, Amendment 820 is not retroactive, as it is not listed among the retroactive amendments in the applicable policy statements, and therefore, it cannot have the effect of lowering his sentence retroactively. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d); 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Second, even if Amendment 820 applied retroac- tively, it would not lower Caldwell’s Guidelines range, because he did not receive the two-point acceptance of responsibility reduc- tion and it only relates to the third acceptance of responsibility point which first requires that he receive the two-level reduction.

U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b); 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Therefore, the Govern- ment is clearly right as a matter of law and is entitled to summary affirmance. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162

United States v. Caraballo-Martinez, 866 F.3d 1233, 1238 (11th Cir. 2017).

USCA11 Case: 24-10759 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 01/14/2025 Page: 5 of 5

24-10759 Opinion of the Court 5 (5th Cir. 1969) 2 (stating summary disposition is appropriate, in part, where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the out- come of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the ap- peal is frivolous”).

Accordingly, we GRANT the Government’s motion for summary affirmance.

AFFIRMED.

2 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), this Court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Cir- cuit handed down prior to close of business on September 30, 1981.