US v. Paulette Martin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:04-cr-00235-RWT-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999941023]. Mailed to: Paulette Martin. [16-6434]

Appeal: 16-6434

Doc: 12

Filed: 10/04/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6434

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PAULETTE MARTIN, a/k/a Paulette Murphy,
Akuffo, a/k/a Paula Murphy, a/k/a Auntie,

a/k/a

Paulette

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:04-cr-00235-RWT-1)

Submitted:

September 15, 2016

Before GREGORY,
Judges.

Chief

Judge,

Decided:

and

MOTZ

and

October 4, 2016

DUNCAN,

Circuit

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam.

James Wyda, Federal Public
Mirchandani, OFFICE OF THE
Maryland, for Appellant.
States Attorney, Baltimore,

Defender, Baltimore, Maryland; Sapna
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenbelt,
Debra Lynn Dwyer, Assistant United
Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6434

Doc: 12

Filed: 10/04/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Paulette Martin appeals the district court’s order denying
her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion seeking a sentence reduction
under Amendment 782.
for

a

sentence

warranted

in

The parties dispute Martin’s eligibility

reduction

light

of

postsentencing conduct.

and

the

whether

§ 3553(a)

such

a

factors

reduction
and

is

Martin’s

In denying the motion, the court simply

checked the “DENIED” box on the form order, offering no reason
for the denial.

Martin contends that the court procedurally

erred in failing to identify a reason for denying her sentence
reduction motion.

Under the unique circumstances of this case,

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: 16-6434

Doc: 12

Filed: 10/04/2016

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

in

consider
occurred

“post-sentencing
after

determining

reduction

is

imposition

whether,

warranted.

and

conduct
of
to

USSG

the
what

of
term

of

extent,

§ 1B1.10

a

cmt.

n.1(B)(iii).
Martin argues that it is impossible to determine whether
the district court abused its discretion in denying her motion
for a sentence reduction because it provided no reason for the
denial.

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.
Martin’s case is of an entirely different species.
we

cannot

determine

in

the

first

instance

whether

the

Here,
court

concluded that Martin was ineligible for a sentence reduction
3

Appeal: 16-6434

or,

Doc: 12

Filed: 10/04/2016

alternatively,

whether

Pg: 4 of 4

the

court

decided

that

such

a

reduction was unwarranted in light of the § 3553(a) factors and
Martin’s postsentencing conduct.

Because the parties presented

fully developed, nonfrivolous arguments as to both steps of the
sentence

reduction

inquiry,

we

can

only

speculate

as

to

the

basis for the district court’s decision.
Ultimately,
unable

to

denying

the

assess

Martin’s

district

whether
motion.

the

court’s
court

While

we

sparse

abused

order

its

take

no

leaves

us

discretion

in

position

as

to

whether Martin can 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