USA v. Roderick Washington
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-30631 Affirmed ] Judge: CES , Judge: EGJ , Judge: EHJ. Mandate pull date is 02/02/2017 [16-30631]
Date Filed: 01/12/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
January 12, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:08-CR-188-4
Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Roderick Washington appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for
a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court
originally sentenced Washington to 126 months of imprisonment after he
pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or
more of cocaine base. Following Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines,
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Date Filed: 01/12/2017
the district court denied Washington’s motion for a reduction to 120 months of
We review a district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence under
§ 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d
713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011). If the district court bases its decision on an error of
law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, it commits an abuse of
discretion. Id. The district court does not abuse its discretion when the record
shows that the court duly considered the motion as a whole and considered the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, even implicitly. United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d
1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995).
The parties agree that Washington was eligible for a reduction.
However, they dispute whether the court’s denial was an abuse of discretion.
In this case, the court specifically stated that it considered the § 3553(a)
sentencing factors and “all of the information submitted,” including
Washington’s presentence report. To the extent Washington argues that the
court did not provide adequate reasons for its denial, “a court is not required
to state findings of facts and conclusion[s] of law when denying a § 3582(c)(2)
motion.” United States v. Cooley, 590 F.3d 293, 298 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). Because the record reveals that the
district court gave due consideration to the motion as a whole and to the
§ 3553(a) factors, it did not abuse its discretion. See Whitebird, 55 F.3d at 1010.
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?