USA v. Michael Derrow
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-40053 Affirmed] Judge: EGJ, Judge: JES, Judge: JEG. Mandate pull date is 02/23/2017; granting motion for summary affirmance filed by Appellee USA [8331610-2]; granting motion to file response out of time filed by Appellant Mr. Michael Joseph Derrow [8359983-2]; denying motion for judicial notice filed by Appellant Mr. Michael Joseph Derrow [8414940-2], denying motion for judicial notice filed by Appellant Mr. Michael Joseph Derrow [8398034-2], denying motion for judicial notice filed by Appellant Mr. Michael Joseph Derrow [8396866-2], denying motion for judicial notice filed by Appellant Mr. Michael Joseph Derrow [8390184-2], denying motion for judicial notice filed by Appellant Mr. Michael Joseph Derrow [8303983-2], denying motion for judicial notice filed by Appellant Mr. Michael Joseph Derrow [8260522-2]; denying motion for partial dismissal of appeal filed by Appellee USA [8331610-3]; denying motion to extend time to file appellee's brief filed by Appellee USA [8331610-4]; denying motion for request for evidence rule 201(e) filed by Appellant Mr. Michael Joseph Derrow [8268196-2]; denying motion to remand case filed by Appellant Mr. Michael Joseph Derrow [8235327-2] [16-40053]
Date Filed: 02/02/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
February 2, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
MICHAEL JOSEPH DERROW,
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 9:98-CR-6-9
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Michael Derrow, federal prisoner # 03199-286, appeals the denial of 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Date Filed: 02/02/2017
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction of sentence. He claims that the
district court abused its discretion because he was entitled to a reduction of his
sentence under Amendments 591, 706, and 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines.
He also contends that the court failed to take notice of the commentary to
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, and he challenges the reliability of the information in the
We review for abuse of discretion a decision whether to reduce a sentence
pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir.
2009). Amendments 591 and 782 did not have the effect of lowering Derrow’s
guideline range. Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, Derrow’s claim concerning Amendment 706 is barred from consideration because it was denied by the
district court in a prior § 3582 motion and was rejected by this court on appeal.
See United States v. Matthews, 312 F.3d 652, 657 (5th Cir. 2002). Further,
there is no indication that the court failed to consider whether Derrow’s guideline range was altered by the amendments. Moreover, the sentencing court is
not required to provide reasons for its denial of a § 3582 motion. See Evans,
587 F.3d at 674. Finally, Derrow’s theories regarding the validity of the original sentence are not cognizable in a § 3582(c)(2) motion. See United States v.
Hernandez, 645 F.3d 709, 712 (5th Cir. 2011).
The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Dillon v. United
States, 560 U.S. 817, 826–27 (2010). Accordingly, the government’s motion for
summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. The
motion for partial summary dismissal is DENIED. The alternative motion for
an extension of time is DENIED.
Derrow’s motion to file an out-of-time
response is GRANTED. All other outstanding motions are DENIED.
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?