Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-30247/USCOURTS-ca5-15-30247-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert D. Harrell
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-30247

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROBERT D. HARRELL,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:05-CR-190-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert D. Harrell, federal prisoner # 29484-034, appeals the district 

court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction of his sentence 

for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. Harrell contends that he 

was eligible for a reduction pursuant to Amendment 782 to the Sentencing 

Guidelines and that all of the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors 

clearly weighed in favor of a sentence reduction.

 

* 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

December 7, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-30247 Document: 00513296644 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/07/2015
No. 15-30247

2

The district court had before it Harrell’s arguments supporting a 

sentence reduction; the original and reduced guidelines range; Harrell’s 

inmate discipline record and education record; and the presentence report from 

Harrell’s original sentencing. Harrell’s original within-guidelines sentence of 

168 months of imprisonment was above the amended guidelines range of 120 

to 135 months of imprisonment. The district court denied the motion after 

considering the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the threat Harrell would pose to 

the community if granted a reduction, and his post-conviction conduct. While 

the district court did not discuss the § 3553(a) factors, the arguments were 

presented to the district court, and “we can assume that it considered them.” 

United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 673 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted).

Harrell argues that the district court’s decision was based on a clearly 

erroneous assessment of the evidence because the relevant sentencing factors 

weigh in favor of a reduction. However, the court’s findings are supported by

the record. See United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011) 

(per curiam). Moreover, the district court was under no obligation to reduce 

Harrell’s sentence. Evans, 587 F.3d at 673. Harrell has failed to demonstrate 

that the district court abused its discretion by denying the motion. See United 

States v. Smith, 595 F.3d 1322, 1323 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. 

Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-30247 Document: 00513296644 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/07/2015