United States v. Marcellus Reynolds

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Marcellus Reynolds

378 F. App'x 471

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 18, 2010

Docket09-30596

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 378 F. App'x 471 (United States v. Marcellus Reynolds) 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. Marcellus Reynolds, 378 F. App'x 471 (5th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Marcellus Quechez Reynolds, now federal prisoner # 38960-179, has appealed the denial of his motions under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) requesting a reduction of his sentence in light of recent amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines pertaining to cocaine base offenses. Section 3582(c)(2) permits the discretionary modification of a defendant’s sentence in certain cases where the sentencing range has been subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission. See United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 237 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 517, 175 L.Ed.2d 366 (2009). Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines modified the guideline ranges applicable to cocaine base offenses to reduce the disparity between cocaine base and powder cocaine sentences. U.S.S.G. Supp. to App. C, Amend. 706; Doublin, 572 F.3d at 236.

Section 3582(c)(2) permits the discretionary modification of a defendant’s sentence only where the defendant’s sentencing range is actually lowered by the Sentencing Commission. See § 3582(c)(2). Because Reynolds was accountable for more than 4.5 kilograms of cocaine base, Amendment 706 did not change his guidelines sentence range. See Amend. 706.

“A § 3582(c)(2) motion is not a second opportunity to present mitigating factors to the sentencing judge, nor is it a challenge to the appropriateness of the original sentence.” United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5th Cir.1995); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, p.s. Thus, Reynolds was not entitled to have the district court recalculate his base offense level.

Because Reynolds is ineligible for relief, the district court’s order is AFFIRMED. *472 Reynolds’s request in his brief for appointment of counsel for presentation of oral argument is DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

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

PER CURIAM: *

Marcellus Quechez Reynolds, now federal prisoner # 38960-179, has appealed the denial of his motions under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) requesting a reduction of his sentence in light of recent amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines pertaining to cocaine base offenses. Section 3582(c)(2) permits the discretionary modification of a defendant’s sentence in certain cases where the sentencing range has been subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission. See United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 237 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 517, 175 L.Ed.2d 366 (2009). Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines modified the guideline ranges applicable to cocaine base offenses to reduce the disparity between cocaine base and powder cocaine sentences. U.S.S.G. Supp. to App. C, Amend. 706; Doublin, 572 F.3d at 236.

Section 3582(c)(2) permits the discretionary modification of a defendant’s sentence only where the defendant’s sentencing range is actually lowered by the Sentencing Commission. See § 3582(c)(2). Because Reynolds was accountable for more than 4.5 kilograms of cocaine base, Amendment 706 did not change his guidelines sentence range. See Amend. 706.

“A § 3582(c)(2) motion is not a second opportunity to present mitigating factors to the sentencing judge, nor is it a challenge to the appropriateness of the original sentence.” United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5th Cir.1995); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, p.s. Thus, Reynolds was not entitled to have the district court recalculate his base offense level.

Because Reynolds is ineligible for relief, the district court’s order is AFFIRMED. *472 Reynolds’s request in his brief for appointment of counsel for presentation of oral argument is DENIED.

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

378 F. App'x 471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-marcellus-reynolds-ca5-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack