US v. Martin Delgado

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:06-cr-00164-RBS-JEB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999567562]. Mailed to: appellant. [14-7813]

Appeal: 14-7813

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/20/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7813

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARTIN DELGADO,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:06-cr-00164-RBS-JEB-1)

Submitted:

April 16, 2015

Decided:

April 20, 2015

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Martin Delgado, Appellant
Assistant
United
States
Appellee.

Pro Se.
Attorney,

Melissa Elaine O’Boyle,
Norfolk,
Virginia,
for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7813

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/20/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Martin

Delgado

appeals

from

the

district

court

order

denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a
sentence reduction.

For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

A district court may reduce the sentence of a defendant
whose

Guidelines

sentencing

range

has

been

lowered

by

the

Sentencing Commission.

United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d 193,

195 (4th Cir. 2013).

Whether to grant such a reduction is

within the district court’s discretion, so long as it considers
the

factors

outlined

extent applicable.
at

195.

however.

The

in

18

U.S.C.

§

3553(a)

(2012),

to

the

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

court

is

not

required

to

grant

a

reduction,

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

2010).
We review a district court’s decision whether to grant a
§ 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion.
Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010).

United States v.

In so doing, we may

not substitute our judgment for that of the district court, but
instead consider whether the court’s exercise of discretion was
arbitrary or capricious.

United States v. Mason, 52 F.3d 1286,

1289 (4th Cir. 1995).
Our review of the record demonstrates that the court did
not abuse its discretion in denying Delgado’s motion.

The court

clearly understood its authority to reduce Delgado’s sentence
2

Appeal: 14-7813

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/20/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

pursuant to the crack cocaine Guidelines amendment but declined
to

do

so

based

on

its

careful

circumstances of Delgado’s case.
631

F.3d

669,

679

(4th

review

of

the

facts

and

See United States v. Jeffery,

Cir.

2011)

(“district

courts

have

extremely broad discretion when determining the weight to be
given each of the § 3553(a) factors”).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3