USA v. Lutcher

Filing 920100218

Case: 08-30889

Document: 00511027179

Page: 1

Date Filed: 02/12/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
No. 08-30889 Conference Calendar February 12, 2010 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. MELVIN LUTCHER, also known as Mel, also known as Big Mel, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:03-CR-338-2

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Melvin Lutcher, federal prisoner # 21092-034, appeals from the district court's denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction in his sentence. He contends that the denial of his motion was an abuse of discretion because the district court failed to take into consideration the crack/powder disparity and gave too much weight to his prison disciplinary offenses. We review the decision whether to grant or deny a § 3582(c)(2) motion for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009).
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 08-30889

Document: 00511027179 Page: 2 No. 08-30889

Date Filed: 02/12/2010

A district court is required to consider the sentencing factors set out at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) when contemplating a § 3582(c)(2) motion, but it need not explain that it has done so. Id. at 673-74. A district court need not provide any reasons at all for denying a § 3582(c)(2) motion. Id. at 674. We can assume that a district court has considered any § 3553(a) arguments presented in favor of a sentence reduction. Id. at 673. The district court implicitly considered Lutcher's rehabilitative efforts in prison, see id., and explicitly considered Lutcher's lack of rehabilitative efforts generally. Lutcher, moreover, has a history as a habitual criminal. The denial of Lutcher's § 3582(c)(2) motion was not an abuse of discretion. See id. at 672. AFFIRMED.

2