USA v. Blount

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [08-31000 Affirmed ] Judge: TMR , Judge: JLD , Judge: EBC Mandate pull date is 11/09/2010 [08-31000]

USA v. Blount

Doc. 0

Case: 08-31000

Document: 00511267774

Page: 1

Date Filed: 10/19/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 08-31000 S u m m a r y Calendar October 19, 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. R O N A L D LEE BLOUNT, JR., also known as Pixie, 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 Western District of Louisiana U S D C No. 2:98-CR-20058-2

B e fo r e REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* R o n a ld Lee Blount, Jr., federal prisoner # 79414-079, appeals the district c o u r t's denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his life sentence for c o n s p ir in g to distribute over 50 grams of cocaine base. He argues that his a d ju d ic a t io n as a career offender did not preclude him from obtaining relief u n d e r § 3582(c)(2) on account of the retroactive amendments to the Sentencing G u id e lin e s concerning crack cocaine. Blount maintains that the district court

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 08-31000

Document: 00511267774 Page: 2 No. 08-31000

Date Filed: 10/19/2010

h a d authority under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), to resentence h im to a lesser term of imprisonment. B e c a u s e Blount was sentenced to a statutory minimum life sentence on a c c o u n t of his prior felony drug convictions, the crack cocaine amendments did n o t lower his guidelines sentence range, and he was not eligible for a sentence r e d u c t io n under § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Pardue, 36 F.3d 429, 431 (5th C ir . 1994); U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(b). The Supreme Court has determined that Booker d o e s not apply to sentence reductions under § 3582(c)(2) and that the district c o u r t may not impose a sentence below the amended guideline range unless the sen ten c in g court originally imposed a term of imprisonment below the guidelines r a n g e . Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2692 (2010). Likewise, the B o o k e r reasonableness standard does not apply in proceedings under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. d e n ie d , 130 S. Ct. 3462 (2010). In view of the foregoing, Blount has not shown t h a t the district court abused its discretion by denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion. See id. B lo u n t also contends that the district court erred by denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing. He argues that h is motion raised issues concerning the application of Booker and that all parties s h o u ld have been present when these issues were resolved. P u r s u a n t to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a defendant need n o t be present at a § 3582(c) proceeding. FED. R. CRIM. P. 43(b)(4). Generally, a district court must hold a hearing only if it is necessary because the facts are in dispute. See Dickens v. Lewis, 750 F.2d 1251, 1255 (5th Cir. 1984). Because B lo u n t was ineligible for relief under § 3582(c)(2), the district court did not abuse it s discretion by denying Blount's motion for a reduction in sentence absent an e v id e n t ia r y hearing. See id.; FED. R. CRIM. P. 43(b)(4). T h e judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2