Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-30854/USCOURTS-ca5-15-30854-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pedro Wardell Brown
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-30854

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PEDRO WARDELL BROWN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:96-CR-100-1

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pedro Wardell Brown, federal prisoner # 25032-034, appeals the district 

court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion, in which he sought a 

reduction of his sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 220 

grams of crack cocaine; possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine base;

possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine within 1,000 feet of a public 

secondary school; and knowingly using and carrying a firearm in relation to a 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 11, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-30854 Document: 00513757524 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/11/2016
No. 15-30854

2

drug trafficking crime. Brown argues that the district court abused its 

discretion in denying him a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 782 of 

the Sentencing Guidelines, which effectively lowered most drug-related base 

offense levels. He asserts that the district court failed to give proper weight to 

his post-sentencing conduct, his network of supportive family and friends, and 

his expressed remorse for his criminal conduct. 

We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision whether to 

reduce a sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 

667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). The record establishes that the district court 

considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors as well as Brown’s postsentencing conduct in evaluating whether a sentence reduction was 

warranted. See United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1009-10 (5th Cir. 

1995); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(B)(iii)). Brown has not shown that the 

district court abused its discretion by denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion based on 

an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence. See United 

States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717-18 (5th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, the 

district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-30854 Document: 00513757524 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/11/2016