US v. Angelo Patterson


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-6867 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/29/2016 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6867 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANGELO PATTERSON, Defendant - Appellant.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?