US v. Jerome Thoma

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:93-cr-00196-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999239776].. [13-7132]

Appeal: 13-7132

Doc: 27

Filed: 11/14/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7132

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEROME THOMAS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
David A. Faber,
Senior District Judge. (2:93-cr-00196-2)

Submitted:

November 7, 2013

Decided:

November 14, 2013

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West
for Appellant.
R. Booth Goodwin, II, United States
William
B.
King,
II,
Assistant
United
States
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

D. Byrne,
Virginia,
Attorney,
Attorney,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7132

Doc: 27

Filed: 11/14/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jerome

Thomas

appeals

the

district

court’s

judgment

order denying a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)
(2012).

We affirm.
A district court may reduce a sentence in the case of

a defendant whose guidelines sentencing range has been lowered
by the Sentencing Commission.
193, 195 (4th Cir. 2013).
within

the

court’s

United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d
Whether to reduce the sentence is

discretion

so

long

as

it

considers

the

factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) to the extent
applicable.
195.
the

See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Smalls, 720 F.3d at

The court is not required to reduce the sentence even if
current

sentence

is

above

the

amended

guidelines

range.

United States v. Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 200 (4th Cir. 2010).
review

a

district

court’s

decision

sentence for abuse of discretion.
F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010).

on

whether

to

reduce

We
a

United States v. Munn, 595

Under this standard, we may not

substitute our judgment for that of the district court, but must
determine whether the district court’s exercise of discretion
was arbitrary or capricious.

United States v. Mason, 52 F.3d

1286, 1289 (4th Cir. 1995).
The court did not abuse its discretion in considering
the nature and the circumstances of the offense that resulted in
Thomas being arrested.

See, e.g., United States v. Osborn, 679
2

Appeal: 13-7132

F.3d

Doc: 27

1193,

offense,

Filed: 11/14/2013

1196

(10th

including

the

Cir.

Pg: 3 of 3

2012)

(the

involvement

of

seriousness
firearms

on

of

the

multiple

occasions, was a proper basis for denying the § 3582(c) motion).
“[D]istrict
determining
factors.”
2011).

courts
the

have

weight

to

extremely
be

given

broad
each

discretion
of

the

§

when

3553(a)

United States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669, 679 (4th Cir.
Accordingly,

the

district

court’s

determination

that

Thomas is still a danger to the public, based in part on the
circumstances that led to Thomas’ arrest, is well within the
court’s discretion.

We also conclude that the court acted well

within its discretion when considering Thomas’ post-conviction
conduct, and in concluding that such conduct calls into question
his ability to respect the law and refrain from violence.
Because

the

district

court

did

not

abuse

its

discretion in denying Thomas a sentence reduction, we affirm the
judgment of the district court.

We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3