Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01473/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01473-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James W. Boyd
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-1473

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

James W. Boyd

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________

 Submitted: January 11, 2016

 Filed: April 22, 2016

[Published]

____________

Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

James William Boyd pleaded guilty to possession of pseudoephedrine,

knowing it would be used to manufacture methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(c)(2). He was sentenced in May 2010 to 87 months in prison, the bottom of his

advisory guidelines range. After Amendment 782 to the Guidelines retroactively

lowered the base offense level for this offense effective November 1, 2015, see

Appellate Case: 15-1473 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/22/2016 Entry ID: 4391122 
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d), (e), Boyd filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to

reduce his sentence to 70 months. This is the bottom of the amended range that

would have applied had Amendment 782 been in effect when Boyd was sentenced,

and the maximum reduction that may be granted under § 3582(c)(2). See Dillon v.

United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A). The district

court determined that Boyd was eligible for a discretionary reduction under

1

§ 3582(c)(2) but denied his motion, explaining:

The defendant’s involvement in serious acts of misconduct [in

prison while serving this sentence] -- one of which resulted in a new

criminal conviction -- is indicative of his unwillingness to conform his

behavior to the law. Given these circumstances, the court believes that

a reduction of the defendant’s sentence would present a risk of danger

to the community. After considering the relevant factors set forth in 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) and after reviewing the presentence report, the report

of the Probation Office . . . and the parties’ memoranda, the court

concludes that the defendant’s sentence should not be reduced.

Boyd appeals, arguing the district court abused its discretion in denying a sentence

reduction because, in his view, the two prison misconduct violations do not show he

would be a danger to the community if granted a reduction, and his conduct and

participation in prison programming since his second violation in November 2013

“show that he is prepared to conduct a sober and law-abiding life once he isreleased.”

In considering whether to grant a discretionary § 3582(c)(2)sentence reduction

to an eligible defendant, a district court (i) shall consider the § 3553(a) sentencing

factors, (ii) shall consider the danger to any person or the community that may be

posed by a sentence reduction, and (iii) may consider “post-sentencing conduct of the

defendant that occurred after imposition of the term of imprisonment.” U.S.S.G.

The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Missouri.

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-1473 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/22/2016 Entry ID: 4391122 
§ 1B1.10, comment. n.1(B). Here, it is undisputed that in January 2013, while Boyd

was incarcerated at the Bureau of Prisons facility in Forrest City, Arkansas, he was

found in possession of a cell phone that may be used to aid escapes or criminal

activity, a serious offense for which he was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C.

§ 1791(a)(2) and received a consecutive seven-month sentence. In November 2013,

Boyd wasfound to have violated the Bureau of Prisons prohibition against possession

of a weapon when a broken and sharpened plastic clothes hanger was found under

Boyd’s bed in a shared cell. These prison conduct violations were the primary

reasons the district court denied a § 3582(c)(2) reduction. This post-sentencing

conduct was clearly relevant to the court’s exercise of its § 3582(c)(2) discretion, and

unlike the record on appeal in United States v. Burrell, 622 F.3d 961, 964 (8th Cir.

2010), the court’s above-quoted explanation was more than sufficient to allow us to

meaningfully review how its substantial sentencing discretion was exercised. We

discern no abuse of that discretion.

The Order of the district court dated February 13, 2015, is affirmed.

 ______________________________

-3-

Appellate Case: 15-1473 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/22/2016 Entry ID: 4391122