USA v. Glaspie

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [08-10612 Affirmed ] Judge: JLW , Judge: ECP , Judge: PRO Mandate pull date is 11/17/2010; granting motion for summary affirmance filed by USA [6115907-2]; denying motion to extend time to file appellee's brief filed by USA [6115907-3] [08-10612]

USA v. Glaspie

Case: 08-10612 Document: 00511276985 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/27/2010

Doc. 0

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 08-10612 S u m m a r y Calendar October 27, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in t if f ­ A p p e lle e , v. C A R L O S GLASPIE, D e fe n d a n t ­ A p p e lla n t .

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Northern District of Texas U S D C No. 3:01-CR-173-1

B e fo r e WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* C a r lo s Glaspie, federal prisoner # 27622-177, appeals the district court's d e n ia l of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Glaspie p le a d e d guilty to conspiracy to distribute in excess of 50 grams of cocaine base (c r a c k ) and to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to a t e r m of 235 months in prison on the drug count and to a term of 120 months on t h e firearm count, the terms to run concurrently. Glaspie sought the reduction

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 08-10612 Document: 00511276985 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/27/2010 No. 08-10612 b a s e d on amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines that reduced the offense le v e ls for crimes involving crack cocaine. L ib e r a lly construed, Glaspie argues that his sentence is greater than n e c e s s a r y to achieve the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) because the court gave in a d e q u a t e weight to his post-incarceration conduct and overstated the s e r io u s n e s s of his offense, his criminal history, and his potential danger to s o c ie ty . The decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is

r e v ie w e d for abuse of discretion. United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th C ir . 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3462 (2010). Under that standard, we may not s u b s t it u t e our judgment for that of the sentencing court. See Gall v. United S ta te s , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The district court did not abuse its discretion but g a v e due consideration to the motion as a whole and the § 3553(a) factors. See U n ite d States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. S h a w , 30 F.3d 26, 29 (5th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (affirming the denial of a § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) motion where "implicitly, the district court considered at least some o f the factors set forth in § 3553(a)"). T h e judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government's m o t io n for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and its alternate request for an e x t e n s io n of time in which to file a brief is DENIED.

2