USA v. Coleman

Filing 511104576

Case: 08-30624

Document: 00511104576

Page: 1

Date Filed: 05/07/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 08-30624 S u m m a r y Calendar May 7, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

U N I T E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in tiff-A p p e lle e v. E D W A R D COLEMAN, also known as Lil Edward, 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 Eastern District of Louisiana U S D C No. 2:03-CR-274-8

B e fo r e GARWOOD, DENNIS and ELROD, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* E d w a r d Coleman, federal prisoner # 28581-034, pleaded guilty, pursuant t o a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent t o distribute five grams or more of cocaine base, a quantity of cocaine h y d r o c h lo r id e , 100 grams or more of heroin, and quantities of marijuana (count o n e ). He also pleaded guilty to commission of violent crimes in aid of

r a c k e te e r in g (count two). Coleman was sentenced to concurrent terms of 121 m o n t h s in prison on each count.
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
*

Case: 08-30624

Document: 00511104576 Page: 2 No. 08-30624

Date Filed: 05/07/2010

C o le m a n , represented here and below by the Federal Public Defender, a p p e a ls the district court's order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence u n d e r 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), in light of the recent amendments to the crack c o c a in e sentencing guidelines. In denying the motion, the district court noted t h a t Coleman's original sentence was within the amended guidelines range and th a t no further reconsideration applied. Coleman contends that the district court arbitrarily denied his § 3582(c)(2) m o t io n without regard to case-specific facts, such as his postconviction re h a b ilita tiv e conduct, or consideration of the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). C o lem a n contends a sentencing range overlap, by itself, cannot be used to justify t h e denial of a reduction. As an initial matter, we reject the Government's a s s e r t io n that Coleman waived the right to bring the instant appeal under the te r m s of his plea agreement. See United States v. Cooley, 590 F.3d 293, 297 (5th C ir. 2009). T h e denial of a § 3582 motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United S ta te s v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2009). Section 3582(c)(2) permits the d is c r e t io n a ry modification of a defendant's sentence in certain cases where the s e n te n c in g range has been subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission. U n ite d States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 237 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 517 (2 0 0 9 ). In such cases, the district court may reduce the sentence after

c o n s id e r in g the applicable factors under § 3553(a) and the applicable guideline p o l ic y statements. § 3582(c)(2). However, the sentencing court is not required to provide reasons for its denial of a § 3582(c)(2) motion or to expressly explain its consideration of the § 3553(a) factors. Evans, 587 F.3d at 673-74. If the r e c o rd shows that the district court gave due consideration to the motion as a w h o le and implicitly considered the § 3553(a) factors, there is no abuse of d is c r e tio n . See United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995). A lt h o u g h the district court did not discuss the § 3553(a) factors expressly, t h e record reflects that it considered them. See Evans, 587 F.3d at 673. The 2

Case: 08-30624

Document: 00511104576 Page: 3 No. 08-30624

Date Filed: 05/07/2010

d is tr ic t court's decision denying the motion indicates that it understood that C o le m a n 's original sentence was within the amended guidelines range and s h o w s that the district court considered the amended guidelines range but d e t e r m in e d that no reduction in sentence was warranted. Under these

c ir c u m s ta n c e s , the court gave due consideration to the motion to reduce sentence a n d implicitly considered the § 3553(a) factors. Moreover, the record reflects t h a t the district court was made aware of Coleman's good conduct in prison, and th e r e is no reason to believe that the district court believed erroneously that it c o u ld not reduce Coleman's sentence.1 Accordingly, Coleman has not shown that th e district court's denial of his motion was an abuse of discretion. See Evans, 5 8 7 F.3d at 673-74; Whitebird, 55 F.3d at 1010; United States v. Harrell, 341 F e d . Appx. 965, 2009 WL 2566998 (5th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED.

In the report to the court from the committee consisting of a representative of the District Attorney's Office and a representative of the Federal Public Defender's Office, the court was advised of the original guideline range (121-151 months), the amended guideline range (97-121 months), that "Defendant is eligible for [section] 3582 sentence reduction" and of the fact that Coleman had no prison disciplinary record (and Coleman's motion to reduce likewise mentioned that and his completion of a drug abuse program in prison). We also note that at the original sentencing the district court stated that "You [Coleman] had a history here of run-ins with the law. You were lucky your criminal history was only II as opposed to III. I have some question about that. It looks like to me Probation might have given you a little bit of a break with this criminal history II rather than III." The court also said at the original sentencing that the sentencing objectives of punishment and rehabilitation could be met by a 121 month sentence.

1

3