United States v. Jermaine Latham

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Jermaine Latham

650 F. App'x 857

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 31, 2016

Docket15-60273

StatusUnpublished

This text of 650 F. App'x 857 (United States v. Jermaine Latham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Jermaine Latham, 650 F. App'x 857 (5th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM; *

Jermaine. Latham appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) motion to reduce *858 his 285-month sentence for possession of powder cocaine with intent to distribute. Latham contends that comments made by the district court during an unrelated § 3582(c) hearing three weeks after the denial of his motion demonstrate, in retrospect, that it failed to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in denying him relief. See United States v. Larry, 632 F.3d 933, 936 (5th Cir. 2011). Finding no abuse of the district court’s discretion, we affirm. See United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1009 (5th Cir. 1995).

Both in its written order and in a separate statement of reasons, the district court expressly cited § 3553(a) as the basis for its decision not to grant Latham a sentence reduction. See Larry, 632 F.3d at 936. Latham argues, however, that any assumption that the district court contemporaneously considered § 3553(a) is rebutted by its subsequent comments, in which the court failed to recall having previously denied Latham’s motion and noted the divergence between its treatment of his motion and its normal § 3582(c) protocol. See generally United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 673 (5th Cir. 2009). This argument fails for two reasons. First, the district court’s consideration of § 3553(a) in this case is not merely implicit but, rather, is explicitly documented. Second, the events of the subsequent § 3582(c) hearing are irrelevant to our review because they “were not before the district court at the time of the challenged ruling.” Theriot v. Par. of Jefferson, 185 F.3d 477, 491 n. 26 (5th Cir. 1999).

Because the record reflects the district court’s reliance on § 3553(a) to deny La-tham’s § 3582(c) motion, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R, 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *858 published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM; *

Jermaine. Latham appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) motion to reduce *858 his 285-month sentence for possession of powder cocaine with intent to distribute. Latham contends that comments made by the district court during an unrelated § 3582(c) hearing three weeks after the denial of his motion demonstrate, in retrospect, that it failed to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in denying him relief. See United States v. Larry, 632 F.3d 933, 936 (5th Cir. 2011). Finding no abuse of the district court’s discretion, we affirm. See United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1009 (5th Cir. 1995).

Both in its written order and in a separate statement of reasons, the district court expressly cited § 3553(a) as the basis for its decision not to grant Latham a sentence reduction. See Larry, 632 F.3d at 936. Latham argues, however, that any assumption that the district court contemporaneously considered § 3553(a) is rebutted by its subsequent comments, in which the court failed to recall having previously denied Latham’s motion and noted the divergence between its treatment of his motion and its normal § 3582(c) protocol. See generally United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 673 (5th Cir. 2009). This argument fails for two reasons. First, the district court’s consideration of § 3553(a) in this case is not merely implicit but, rather, is explicitly documented. Second, the events of the subsequent § 3582(c) hearing are irrelevant to our review because they “were not before the district court at the time of the challenged ruling.” Theriot v. Par. of Jefferson, 185 F.3d 477, 491 n. 26 (5th Cir. 1999).

Because the record reflects the district court’s reliance on § 3553(a) to deny La-tham’s § 3582(c) motion, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R, 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *858 published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

650 F. App'x 857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jermaine-latham-ca5-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack