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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . Mailed to: Angelo Patterson. [16-6867]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
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)
November 18, 2016
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
Angelo Patterson appeals the district court’s order denying
his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
States v. Mann, 709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 2013).
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.”
United States v. Briley,
A district court may reduce the sentence of a defendant who
was sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a Sentencing
United States v. Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 200 (4th
Whether to reduce a sentence, and the extent to
discretion of the district court.
United States v. Smalls, 720
F.3d 193, 195 (4th Cir. 2013); see Dillon v. United States, 560
U.S. 817, 827 (2010).
In deciding whether to grant a reduction,
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.”
It also may consider the defendant’s postsentencing
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
sentencing reduction was warranted.
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.
See United States v. Manigan,
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
Pg: 4 of 4
discern no abuse of discretion in the court’s decision to deny
Patterson a reduction.
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?