US v. Mark Lincoln

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:03-cr-00751-TLW-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999709186]. Mailed to: Mark Lincoln. [15-7125]

Appeal: 15-7125

Doc: 7

Filed: 12/01/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7125

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MARK ANTHONY LINCOLN, a/k/a Johnson Harper, a/k/a Kirk
Johnson, a/k/a Ben Lewis, a/k/a Kirk Lincoln, a/k/a Quinton
Harper, a/k/a Christoper Jacob, a/k/a Kirk Williams, a/k/a
Christopher Jenkins,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (4:03-cr-00751-TLW-1)

Submitted:

November 6, 2015

Decided:

December 1, 2015

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Anthony Lincoln, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham,
Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7125

Doc: 7

Filed: 12/01/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Mark Anthony Lincoln seeks to appeal the district court’s
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 Sentencing Guidelines sentencing range has been lowered by
the Sentencing Commission.
193, 195 (4th Cir. 2013).

United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d
Whether to grant such a reduction is

within the district court’s discretion, so long as it considers
the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) to the extent
applicable.
195.

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

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); see also United States v. Jeffery, 631
F.3d 669, 679 (4th Cir. 2011) (holding that district court’s
discretion is extremely broad).
Our review of the record demonstrates that the court did
not abuse its discretion in denying Lincoln’s motion.

The court

clearly understood its authority to reduce Lincoln’s sentence
2

Appeal: 15-7125

Doc: 7

Filed: 12/01/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

pursuant to the Sentencing Guidelines’ amendment but declined to
do so based on its review of Lincoln’s circumstances.
court

was

entitled

to

consider

Lincoln’s

While the

post-conviction

conduct, we cannot conclude that the court abused its discretion
in determining that Lincoln’s extensive criminal history, the
seriousness
documented

of

the

offense

disciplinary

sentence,

even

in

light

Lincoln’s

commitment

of

conviction,

conviction
of

to

the

and

justified

revised

his

Guidelines

rehabilitation.

Lincoln’s
current
range

Moreover,

and

Lincoln

raised certain issues for the first time on appeal, and the
district

court

did

not

abuse

its

discretion

by

failing

to

consider them sua sponte.
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