US v. Angelo Patterson
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:09-cr-00018-D-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999976764]. Mailed to: Angelo Patterson. [16-6867]
Appeal: 16-6867
Doc: 8
Filed: 11/29/2016
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6867
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANGELO PATTERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (4:09-cr-00018-D-1)
Submitted:
November 18, 2016
Decided:
November 29, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Angelo Patterson, Appellant Pro Se.
Eleanor T. Morales,
Assistant United States Attorney, Joshua Bryan Royster, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-6867
Doc: 8
Filed: 11/29/2016
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Angelo Patterson appeals the district court’s order denying
his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
(2012).
We
For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
review
sentence
under
subsidiary
a
district
court’s
§ 3582(c)(2)
factual
for
decision
abuse
determinations
of
for
not
to
reduce
discretion
clear
and
a
its
error.
United
States v. Mann, 709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 2013).
A court
abuses its discretion if “it acts arbitrarily or irrationally,
fails to consider judicially recognized factors constraining its
exercise of discretion, relies on erroneous factual or legal
premises, or commits an error of law.”
770
F.3d
267,
276
(4th
Cir.
2014)
United States v. Briley,
(internal
quotation
marks
omitted).
A district court may reduce the sentence of a defendant who
was sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a Sentencing
Guidelines
range
subsequently
lowered
by
the
Sentencing
Commission.
United States v. Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 200 (4th
Cir. 2010).
Whether to reduce a sentence, and the extent to
which
a
sentence
should
be
reduced,
discretion of the district court.
are
matters
within
the
United States v. Smalls, 720
F.3d 193, 195 (4th Cir. 2013); see Dillon v. United States, 560
U.S. 817, 827 (2010).
the
district
court
In deciding whether to grant a reduction,
must
consider
2
the
applicable
18
U.S.C.
Appeal: 16-6867
Doc: 8
Filed: 11/29/2016
Pg: 3 of 4
§ 3553(a) (2012) factors, as well as “the nature and seriousness
of the danger to any person or the community that may be posed
by a reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment.”
U.S.
Sentencing
(ii)
Guidelines
Manual
§ 1B1.10
cmt.
n.1(B)(i),
(2015).
It also may consider the defendant’s postsentencing
conduct.
Id. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B)(iii).
Contrary to Patterson’s arguments on appeal, the district
court’s order denying his motion demonstrated its consideration
of the individual facts and circumstances of his case, including
Patterson’s
district
postsentencing
court
seriousness
of
efforts
appropriately
Patterson’s
at
rehabilitation.
considered
offense
sentencing reduction was warranted.
in
the
The
nature
determining
and
whether
a
See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1),
(2); USSG § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B); United States v. Osborn, 679
F.3d 1193, 1196 (10th Cir. 2012) (considering similar factors in
upholding denial of sentence reduction).
Further, given the
available record, we conclude that the court committed no clear
error in finding that a reduction in Patterson’s sentence would
pose a threat to public safety.
592
F.3d
621,
631
(4th
Cir.
See United States v. Manigan,
2010)
(defining
clear
error).
Ultimately, in light of the “extremely broad discretion” enjoyed
by a district court when weighing the § 3553(a) factors, see
United States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669, 679 (4th Cir. 2011), we
3
Appeal: 16-6867
Doc: 8
Filed: 11/29/2016
Pg: 4 of 4
discern no abuse of discretion in the court’s decision to deny
Patterson a reduction.
Accordingly,
dispense
with
contentions
are
we
oral
affirm
the
argument
adequately
district
because
presented
in
court’s
the
the
facts
order.
We
and
legal
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
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?