USA v. Montreal Blair

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-10145 Affirmed] Judge: RHB , Judge: JLD , Judge: PRO. Mandate pull date is 04/11/2011 for Appellant Montreal Blair [10-10145]

Download PDF
USA v. Montreal Blair Case: 10-10145 Document: 00511417605 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/21/2011 Doc. 0 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 10-10145 Summary Calendar March 21, 2011 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee v. MONTREAL BLAIR, also known as Monty, Defendant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:06-CR-168-1 Before BARKSDALE, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, Montreal Blair, federal prisoner # 35120-177, appeals the district court's granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (term of imprisonment modification) motion to reduce his sentence based upon Amendment 706 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines (lowering base offense levels for crack-cocaine offenses); his sentence was lowered from 260 to 216 months' imprisonment. He contends the court erred by: failing to entirely recalculate his Guidelines range, including the amount of cocaine for which he 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 10-10145 Document: 00511417605 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/21/2011 No. 10-10145 is liable, in accordance with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and its progeny; and denying his requested hearing as part of the § 3582(c)(2) proceedings. The district court's decision to reduce a sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3462 (2010). Contrary to Blair's assertions, the Government did not stipulate that he was accountable for only 50 grams of crack cocaine. He was not entitled to a full resentencing, but only to the two-level reduction in his offense level provided by Amendment 706. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(3), (b)(1). Because a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction does not constitute a full resentencing, the mandatory limitations on sentence reductions set forth in § 1B1.10 were not affected by Booker, and the bifurcated reasonableness review mandated by Booker and its progeny does not apply here. See Evans, 587 F.3d at 670-72. The record shows the court implicitly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence within the amended Guidelines range of 188-235 months. See id. at 673-74; United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995). Moreover, Blair has identified no factual dispute that would have been resolvable by the district court; therefore, he was not entitled to a hearing. See F ED. R. C RIM. P. 43(b)(4); United States v. Patterson, 42 F.3d 246, 248-49 (5th Cir. 1994). AFFIRMED. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?