Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Mitchell Smalls, 4th Cir. (2013)
United States v. Mitchell Smalls, 4th Cir. (2013)
No. 12-6021
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:96-cr-00131-RBS-2)
Argued:
Decided:
SCHOOL OF
Richard
Richmond,
Director,
UNIVERSITY
Appellant.
Smalls
only
in
appeals
part,
from
his
the
motion
district
for
courts
sentence
order
reduction
I.
In September 1996, a jury found Smalls guilty of conspiracy
to
import
cocaine.
At
sentencing,
the
district
court
held
He based this
which
The
reduced
district
his
court
guideline
granted
range
the
to
motion
324
to
405
and
reduced
on
Amendment
his
750
guideline
to
range
the
to
Sentencing
262
to
327
He based this
Guidelines,
months.
which
In
the
motion, Smalls argued that the district court should not have
3
motion.
defendant
response.
The
shall
be
court
filed
further
within
stated
thirty
that
(30)
any
reply
days
of
by
said
provide
an
individualized
explanation
sentence imposed.
in
support
of
the
II.
A district court may reduce a sentence in the case of a
defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based
on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the
Sentencing Commission.
18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2).
Whether to
See
18
the
U.S.C.
defendants
3582(c)(2).
The
post-sentencing
court
may
conduct.
also
See
consider
U.S.
Sentencing
review
district
court's
grant
or
denial
of
United States v.
district
court
deciding
3582(c)(2)
motion
has
before
it.
Id.
at
728-29
(internal
quotation
marks
omitted); see also id. at 728 ([A] court need not engage in
5
on
issues
determination.
that
have
Consideration
been
is
fully
implicit
presented
in
the
courts
suggests
that,
in
the
absence
of
evidence
for
Thus,
a
court
III.
Smalls contends that in his case the district court did
err.
Smalls argues that (1) Legree did not hold that a court
need
not
provide
any
individualized
reasoning
for
its
We
Smalls
asserts
that
Legree
did
not
address
the
In fact, however,
Guidelines
amendment
been
in
place
at
the
original
Id.
Id. at 729
the
district
court
considered
all
relevant
factors
in
on
Legrees
3582(c)(2)
motion
presided
over
his
failed
to
Id. at 729.
offer
any
new
circumstances,
we
See id.
Further,
the
district
calculations,
appropriate
court
vehicle
erred
in
3582(c)(2)
for
its
motion
challenging
original
does
those
drug
not
quantity
provide
calculations.
an
See
sentencing
would
not
mitigating
contends,
his
case
however,
from
that
Legree.
three
First,
critical
Smalls
factors
notes
that
compared
to
four
years
in
Legree.
Thus,
Smalls
The lapse of
on such a presumption.
same
district
judge
addressed,
several
motions
during
the
although
Smalls
does
not
contend
that
his
motion
before
receiving
his
reply
brief.
The
Thus, in failing
another
case
in
which
the
defendant
and
the
government
to
adopt
refusal to do so.
that
agreed-upon
reduction
or
explain
its
the
extent
of
the
reduction
he
requested.
Rather,
the
Smalls
is
unable
to
identify
any
it
significant
that
the
district
court
factor
that
Moreover, we
proportionally
Smalls, the court found a sentence at the top of the thenapplicable guideline range appropriate based on the extent of
Smalls
criminal
activities
and
his
failure
to
take
decision,
in
response
to
Smalls
most
The
recent
range
suggests
that
the
same
considerations
that
Smalls
contends
Legree
is
no
longer
good
law
10
Gall,
the
Court
clarified
the
obligations
of
within-guidelines
sentence
or
not,
the
sentencing
Gall,
review
sentencing.
and
to
promote
the
perception
of
fair
court
must
Id. at 50.
Though
Gall
makes
clear
that
sentencing
nothing
about
3582(c)(2)
proceedings.
Moreover,
in
sentences,
the
Gall
Court
relied
on
Rita
v.
United
551 U.S. at 356 (The sentencing judge should set forth enough
to
satisfy
the
appellate
court
that
he
has
considered
the
to
state
in
open
court
the
reasons
for
its
which
the
undermines
Court
Smalls
3582(c)(2) proceedings.
Booker
rendered
issued
three
years
that
Gall
argument
after
Gall,
extends
to
advisory
policy
statement
governing
court
cannot
reduce
defendants
See U.S.S.G.
advisory,
the
sentence
as
interests
3582(c)(2)
identified
in
proceedings
Booker.
do
Dillon,
not
130
12
3582(c)(2)
emphasis
proceedings.
on
3582(c)(2)
the
Id.
at
distinctions
proceedings,
we
2690-91.
between
simply
cannot
Given
Dillons
sentencings
assume
that
and
Gall,
further
established
individualized
contention
new
reasoning
fares no better.
rule
when
that,
independent
requiring
deciding
courts
of
Gall,
to
provide
3582(c)(2)
motions
Id. at 2692.
Rather, as
3.
Finally,
we
circuit cases.
find
unavailing
Smalls
reliance
on
out-of-
when
considering
sentence
modification
under
therefore
constitutes
conclude
superseding
that
Supreme
neither
Court
Gall
precedent
nor
that
Dillon
would
IV.
Because Legree governs and the facts of Smalls case fail
to overcome its presumption that, absent a contrary indication,
a
court
has
considered
the
relevant
factors
in
deciding