USA v. Troy Coleman

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Troy Anthony Coleman. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 15-14365

Date Filed: 02/17/2017

Page: 1 of 5

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-14365
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:12-cr-00005-MW-EMT-11

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TROY ANTHONY COLEMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(February 17, 2017)

Before MARTIN, ANDERSON, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

Case: 15-14365

Date Filed: 02/17/2017

Page: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:

Troy Coleman appeals the district court’s reduction, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2), of his sentences: a reduction based on Amendment 782 to the
Sentencing Guidelines. He argues that the district court plainly erred by failing to
provide him with a copy of the United States probation office’s 19 June 2015
letter. Coleman also argues that the district court abused its discretion by reducing
his sentences by just 56 months and not more.

I.

When a party raises an argument for the first time on appeal, we review for
plain error. United States v. Pantle, 637 F.3d 1172, 1174 (11th Cir. 2011). Under
plain error review, we will reverse where there is (1) an error (2) that is plain and
(3) that has affected the defendant's substantial rights; and (4) the error seriously
affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.
Under the third element of the plain-error analysis, the defendant rather than the
government bears the burden of persuasion on prejudice. Id. at 1177. “[T]o meet
that burden, a defendant must show that the claimed error affected his substantial

2

Case: 15-14365

Date Filed: 02/17/2017

Page: 3 of 5

rights, which almost always requires that the error must have affected the outcome
of the district court proceedings.” Id. (quotations omitted).
The district court did not plainly err by failing to provide Coleman with a
copy of the United States probation office’s letter because any error was harmless:
Coleman did not show how having the letter would have impacted on the outcome
of the decision or his substantial rights.

II.

We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision to grant or to
deny a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). United States v.
Hamilton, 715 F.3d 328, 337 n.8 (11th Cir. 2013). “The district court abuses its
discretion if it fails to apply the proper legal standard or to follow proper
procedures in making its determination.” United States v. Jules, 595 F.3d 1239,
1242 (11th Cir. 2010) (quotation and alteration omitted).
Section 3582(c)(2) authorizes a district court to reduce the prison term of an
already incarcerated defendant when that defendant was sentenced based on a
sentencing range that was later lowered by the Sentencing Commission. United
States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780 (11th Cir. 2000). In considering a section
3582(c)(2) motion, a district court must engage in a two-part analysis. Id. First,
3

Case: 15-14365

Date Filed: 02/17/2017

Page: 4 of 5

the district court “must recalculate the sentence under the amended guidelines, first
determining a new base level by substituting the amended guideline range for the
originally applied guideline range, and then using that new base level to determine
what ultimate sentence it would have imposed.” Id. “In undertaking this first step,
only the amended guideline is changed. All other guideline application decisions
made during the original sentencing remain intact.” Id.
If the defendant is eligible for a reduced sentencing-guideline range, the
district court next decides “whether, in its discretion, it will elect to impose the
newly calculated sentence under the amended guidelines or retain the original
sentence.” Bravo, 203 F.3d at 781. The district court “must consider the
sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), as well as public safety
considerations, and may consider the defendant’s post-sentencing conduct, in
evaluating whether a reduction in the defendant’s sentence is warranted and the
extent of any such reduction.” United States v. Williams, 557 F.3d 1254, 1256
(11th Cir. 2009); 18 U.S.C. § 3582(a); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. 1(B). “The
district court is not required to articulate the applicability of each factor, as long as
the record as a whole demonstrates that the pertinent factors were taken into
account by the district court.” Williams, 557 F.3d at 1256 (quotations omitted).
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the sentencing court must “impose a
sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to reflect the seriousness of the
4

Case: 15-14365

Date Filed: 02/17/2017

Page: 5 of 5

offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment for the offense, deter
criminal conduct, protect the public from future crimes of the defendant, and
provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training or medical
care. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). The court must also consider the nature and
circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant;
the kinds of sentences available; the Sentencing Guidelines range; and pertinent
policy statements of the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (3)-(4).
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it reduced Coleman’s
sentences by only 56 months. First, any error in the sentencing guideline
calculations was harmless because the incorrect calculation benefitted Coleman.
Moreover, the district court considered properly the § 3553(a) factors and public
safety considerations in making its determination. The district court applied the
proper legal standard and followed proper procedures; we see no abuse of
discretion.
AFFIRMED.

5