USA v. Robert Thomas

Filing

USA v. Robert Thomas

Doc. 0

Case: 09-31116

Document: 00511214251

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/25/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-31116 S u m m a r y Calendar August 25, 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 B E R T THOMAS, also known as Rob Thomas, 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-257-2

B e fo r e JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* R o b e r t Thomas, federal prisoner # 28532-034, appeals the district court's d e n ia l of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). Thomas a r g u e s that although the district court originally imposed a sentence well below h is advisory range under the Sentencing Guidelines, the court should have fu r t h e r reduced his sentence following the amendment of the Guidelines relative t o crack cocaine offenses. See United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 236 (5th

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 09-31116

Document: 00511214251 Page: 2 No. 09-31116

Date Filed: 08/25/2010

C ir .), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 517 (2009); U.S.S.G. supp. to App. C, amend. 706 (2 0 0 7 ). W e review the district court's decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion. Doublin, 572 F.3d at 237. A district court is under no obligation to reduce a § 3582 movant's sentence. United States v. E v a n s , 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 2010 WL 390721 (June 21, 2 0 1 0 ) (No. 09-8939). Further, the court is not required to provide reasons for d e n y in g a § 3582 motion. United States v. Cooley, 590 F.3d 293, 298 (5th Cir. 2 0 0 9 ). T h e district court noted that Thomas brought his § 3582 motion based on A m e n d m e n t 706 of the Sentencing Guidelines and, thus, impliedly considered t h e sentencing disparity between cocaine and crack cocaine offenses. Further, t h e court did not disregard the arguments advanced by Thomas in support of his m o t io n , but rather determined that they did not outweigh the leniency already a ffo r d e d Thomas when he received a sentence that was substantially lower than b o th his original and his amended guideline imprisonment range. No abuse of d i s c r e tio n has been shown. Accordingly, we need not consider Thomas's

a r g u m e n t concerning the extent of a reduction that was warranted. A F F IR M E D .

2