US v. Philip Cooper
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:99-cr-00138-AWA-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Philip Martin Cooper FCI FORT WORTH FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 15330 Fort Worth, TX 76119-0000. [15-7678]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
PHILIP MARTIN COOPER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Arenda L. Wright Allen,
District Judge. (2:99-cr-00138-AWA-1)
May 17, 2016
February 1, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and DAVIS,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Philip Martin Cooper, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Marie Yusi,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
sentence reduction under Amendment 782.
The parties disputed
Cooper’s eligibility for a sentence reduction and whether such a
reduction is warranted in light of the § 3553(a) factors and
Cooper’s postsentencing conduct.
In denying the motion, the
offering no reason for the denial.
On appeal, Cooper contends,
inter alia, that the district court erred by failing to show or
set forth any finding of fact or reasons to support the court’s
Under the circumtances, we agree.
§ 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion.
But the question
of whether a court ruling on a § 3582(c)(2) motion must provide
an individualized explanation is one of law that we consider de
United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d 193, 195 (4th Cir.
2013) (citation omitted).
In deciding whether to grant a motion
for a sentence reduction, the court must first determine whether
the defendant is eligible for the reduction, consistent with
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10 and then “consider
whether the authorized reduction is warranted, either in whole
or in part, according to the factors set forth in § 3553(a),”
Pg: 3 of 4
extent that they are applicable,” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
presumed that the district court has considered the § 3553(a)
factors and other “issues that have been fully presented for
United States v. Legree, 205 F.3d 724, 728-29
(4th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted).
relevant factors, the court does not err in failing to provide a
full explanation for its § 3582(c)(2) decision.”
F.3d at 196.
However, the sole issue in Legree and Smalls was
not the defendant’s eligibility for the reduction but whether
§ 3553(a) factors and the defendant’s postsentencing conduct.
determine in the first instance whether the court concluded that
alternatively, whether the court decided that such a reduction
was unwarranted in light of the § 3553(a) factors and Cooper’s
Pg: 4 of 4
basis for the district court’s decision.
Ultimately, we are
denying Cooper’s motion
Accordingly, while we take no position as to whether Cooper
is eligible for, or should receive, a sentence reduction under
Amendment 782, we vacate the district court’s order and remand
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?