US v. Philip Cooper
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:99-cr-00138-AWA-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000014717]. Mailed to: Philip Martin Cooper FCI FORT WORTH FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 15330 Fort Worth, TX 76119-0000. [15-7678]
Appeal: 15-7678
Doc: 10
Filed: 02/01/2017
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7678
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
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)
Submitted:
May 17, 2016
Decided:
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Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-7678
Doc: 10
Filed: 02/01/2017
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Philip
denying
Martin
his
18
Cooper
U.S.C.
appeals
the
§ 3582(c)(2)
district
(2012)
sentence reduction under Amendment 782.
court’s
motion
order
seeking
a
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.
court
simply
checked
the
In denying the motion, the
“DENIED”
offering no reason for the denial.
box
on
the
form
order,
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
ruling.
Under the circumtances, we agree.
“We
review
a
district
court’s
grant
§ 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion.
or
denial
of
a
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
novo.”
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),”
Dillon v.
United
States,
560
U.S.
2
817,
826
(2010),
“to
the
Appeal: 15-7678
Doc: 10
Filed: 02/01/2017
Pg: 3 of 4
extent that they are applicable,” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
The
court
the
may
defendant
also
that
imprisonment”
sentence
consider
occurred
in
“post-sentencing
after
determining
reduction
is
conduct
imposition
whether,
warranted.
and
of
to
USSG
the
what
of
term
of
extent,
§ 1B1.10
a
cmt.
n.1(B)(iii).
We
have
held
that,
absent
a
contrary
indication,
it
is
presumed that the district court has considered the § 3553(a)
factors and other “issues that have been fully presented for
determination.”
United States v. Legree, 205 F.3d 724, 728-29
(4th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“in
the
absence
of
evidence
a
court
neglected
Moreover,
to
consider
relevant factors, the court does not err in failing to provide a
full explanation for its § 3582(c)(2) decision.”
F.3d at 196.
Smalls, 720
However, the sole issue in Legree and Smalls was
not the defendant’s eligibility for the reduction but whether
the
district
court
abused
its
discretion
in
assessing
the
§ 3553(a) factors and the defendant’s postsentencing conduct.
The
instant
case
is
distinguishable,
because
we
cannot
determine in the first instance whether the court concluded that
Cooper
was
ineligible
for
a
sentence
reduction
or,
alternatively, whether the court decided that such a reduction
was unwarranted in light of the § 3553(a) factors and Cooper’s
postsentencing
conduct.
Because
3
the
parties
presented
fully
Appeal: 15-7678
Doc: 10
developed,
sentence
Filed: 02/01/2017
nonfrivolous
reduction
Pg: 4 of 4
arguments
inquiry,
we
as
can
to
both
only
speculate
basis for the district court’s decision.
unable
to
assess
whether
the
court
steps
as
of
the
to
the
Ultimately, we are
abused
its
discretion
in
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
for
further
dispense
consideration
with
contentions
are
oral
consistent
argument
adequately
with
because
presented
in
this
the
the
opinion.
facts
We
and
legal
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
4
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?