United States v. Steven Jones

Case: 09-30146 Document: 00511086539 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit FILED

April 20, 2010

No. 09-30146

Conference Calendar Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee v. STEVEN RAY JONES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:03-CR-50032-2

Before SMITH, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Steven Ray Jones, federal prisoner # 11732-035, appeals the district court’s grant of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence based on the amendments to the crack cocaine Guideline. Jones contends that the district court abused its discretion by not granting a reduction to the low end of the recalculated guidelines range. He also contends that in light of § 3582(c)(2)’s requirement that district courts consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the district court’s failure to give reasons for the sentence imposed

Case: 09-30146 Document: 00511086539 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2010

No. 09-30146 constitutes a significant procedural error or, alternatively, an abuse of discretion.

We review a district court’s decision to reduce a sentence for an abuse of discretion and its interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed (Jan. 28, 2010) (No. 09-8939). In Evans, this court noted that because the district court was under no obligation to reduce the defendant’s sentence at all, it was under no obligation to reduce the sentence even further within the recalculated range. Id. at 673. Further, the district court was not required to give reasons for its granting the defendant’s § 3582(c)(2) motion but not selecting “a satisfactorily low enough sentence within the recalculated range.” Id. at 674. Accordingly, Jones’s contentions are foreclosed by Evans, and the district court did not abuse its discretion. See id. at 672-74.

AFFIRMED.