United States v. Jason Dunlap

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _________________

No. 24-2773 _________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v.

JASON DUNLAP,

Appellant ________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 2:17-cr-00305-001)

District Judge: Honorable Joshua D. Wolson ________________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) June 17, 2025

Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, MONTGOMERY-REEVES, and McKEE, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: August 28, 2025) ______________

OPINION ∗ ______________

McKEE, Circuit Judge.

∗

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.

Jason Dunlap appeals the District Court’s denial of his motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). 1 We review de novo whether a defendant is eligible to receive a reduced sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). 2 But once eligibility has been determined, we review a district court’s decision whether to grant or deny a motion for reduction of sentence for abuse of discretion.3

The District Court denied Dunlap’s motion because it concluded that Dunlap was not eligible to receive a reduced sentence, but even if he had been, a reduction was not warranted based on the seriousness of the offense, as well as other factors. Regardless of whether Dunlap was eligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2), the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that a reduction was not warranted.

We are aware of the rather tragic way Dunlap’s own drug addiction began, as well his efforts at rehabilitation while incarcerated. 4 However, the abuse of discretion standard that governs our review of the District Court’s denial of Dunlap’s motion for reduction of sentence is highly deferential. 5 “A district court abuses its discretion when it bases its decision upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an erroneous conclusion of law, or an improper application of law to fact.” 6 We cannot conclude that the District Court abused its discretion by denying Dunlap’s motion to reduce his sentence.

Accordingly, we must affirm the District Court’s denial of Dunlap’s motion to reduce his sentence.