Summary
suggesting that if a prisoner contests the factual basis for the denial of his motion under § 3582(c) he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing
Summary of this case from United States v. BriscoeOpinion
No. 09-30226 Summary Calendar.
March 12, 2010.
Catherine M. Maraist, U.S. Attorney's Office, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Rebecca L. Hudsmith, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender's Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Defendants-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, USDC No. 3:97-CR-43-1.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Kelvin M. Jones appeals from the district court's denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction in his sentence. He argues that the district court erred: in denying the motion based solely upon his criminal history and without otherwise explicitly referencing the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); in failing to acknowledge the disproportionate punishments for crack and powder cocaine; and in not conducting a live evidentiary hearing.
We review the district court's decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion and begin by noting that the court "was under no obligation to reduce [the prisoner's] sentence at all." The court need not mention the § 3553(a) factors — or any of its reasons — when ruling upon a § 3582(c)(2) motion, but the record makes clear that the court did consider both the § 3553(a) factors and the crack sentencing disparities. Indeed, the district court weighed Jones's extensive criminal history — and, implicitly, his continuing danger — when determining that Jones warranted no reduction. Although this court has mused whether in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding the prisoner should get "an evidentiary hearing once he contest[s] the factual basis of some of the Government's contentions," Jones has not articulated a factual dispute; instead, he seeks a hearing to challenge the district court's conclusions. To this he is not entitled.
United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009).
Id. at 673 (citing United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 238 (5th Cir. 2009)).
See id. at 673-74 (explaining in part that "a court is not required to state findings of facts and conclusions of law when denying a § 3582(c)(2) motion" (citation and quotation marks omitted)).
See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) (2)(C); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n. 1.(B)(ii).
United States v. Robinson, 542 F.3d 1045, 1052 (5th Cir. 2008).
See United States v. Kelley, 365 Fed.Appx. 560, 561 (5th Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (citing United States v. Patterson, 42 F.3d 246, 248-49 (5th Cir. 1994); FED.R.CRIM.P. 43); United States v. Hawthorne, 358 Fed.Appx. 595 (5th Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (same); see also Evans, 587 F.3d at 669 (noting that the district court did not grant a hearing on the § 3582(c)(2) matter).
AFFIRMED.