USA v. Eugene Ellis

Filing 920100218

Case: 09-30379

Document: 00511027536

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. 09-30379 Conference Calendar February 12, 2010 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. EUGENE TROY ELLIS, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:99-CR-161-1

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Eugene Troy Ellis, federal prisoner # 26492-034, appeals from the grant of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion, which reduced the sentence he is serving for the offense of possession with the intent to distribute crack cocaine to a term within the amended guidelines range. We affirm. Ellis argues that the reduction in his sentence from 240 months of imprisonment to 210 months of imprisonment was an abuse of the district court's discretion. He contends that, in view of his good prison record and his
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 09-30379

Document: 00511027536 Page: 2 No. 09-30379

Date Filed: 02/12/2010

supportive family, he was entitled to a greater reduction in his sentence of imprisonment, and he asserts that the district court did not give sufficient weight to the sentencing factors that favor a greater reduction. Ellis's contentions are foreclosed by United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 673-74 (5th Cir. 2009). As we explained in Evans, the district court is under no obligation to reduce a sentence at all and, thus, is under no obligation to reduce it even further within the recalculated range. Id. To the extent that Ellis is asserting that the district court did not sufficiently explain its reasons in support of the reduced sentence, Evans also forecloses such an argument. The court held in Evans that a district court is "not required to state findings of facts and conclusions of law" when granting or denying a motion under § 3582(c)(2). Id. at 674 (quotation marks and citation omitted). AFFIRMED.

2