Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-30482/USCOURTS-ca5-15-30482-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Kendall Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-30482

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KENDALL WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:07-CR-51-1

Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:*

Kendall Williams, federal prisoner # 30070-034, appeals the district 

court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence. In 

2007, Williams pleaded guilty to possessing crack cocaine with the intent to 

distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841; possessing a firearm in furtherance 

of a drug-trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and being a felon 

in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). With a total 

 

* 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

March 24, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-30482 Document: 00513438185 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/24/2016
No. 15-30482

2

offense level of 23 and a criminal history score of III, he was sentenced to 71

months for the § 841 and § 924(c) charges, with a mandatory-consecutive 

60-month term on the § 924(c) charge. In August 2014, Williams filed the 

instant pro se § 3582(c)(2) motion, seeking a two-level reduction to his offense

level based on retroactive Amendment 782 and his post-sentencing 

rehabilitative efforts.

The district court’s decision to deny the motion despite Williams’s 

eligibility for a sentence reduction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See

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

shows that the district court gave due consideration to the motion as a whole 

and considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, even implicitly, then there is 

no abuse of discretion. See United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th 

Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 673 (5th Cir. 2009).

Williams argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying 

his motion, urging that the denial was based on a clearly erroneous assessment 

of the evidence and an incomplete consideration of the § 3553(a) factors. He 

asserts that a proper assessment of the evidence and factors, including the 

non-serious nature of his underlying offense, as well as his personal history 

and characteristics, including his pursuit of educational, vocational, and 

drug-treatment opportunities while in prison, weighed in favor of awarding a 

sentencing reduction. 

The district court had before it Williams’s arguments in favor of a 

sentence reduction; the original and reduced guidelines ranges; Williams’s 

criminal history, including three prior drug offenses; a synopsis of his 

post-sentencing conduct, including approximately seventeen disciplinary 

violations, which infractions included threats of bodily harm; and the 

Government’s opposition to the requested sentencing reduction, urging that 

 Case: 15-30482 Document: 00513438185 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/24/2016
No. 15-30482

3

Williams’s early release would pose a threat to public safety. The record thus 

reflects that the district court appropriately considered Williams’s § 3582(c)(2)

motion as a whole, implicitly considered the § 3553(a) factors, and took into 

account the danger to the community that might result from a reduction in his 

term of imprisonment. See Evans, 587 F.3d at 673; see also United States v. 

Smith, 595 F.3d 1322, 1323 (5th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, Williams has not 

demonstrated any abuse of discretion on the district court’s part. See

Whitebird, 55 F.3d at 1010.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-30482 Document: 00513438185 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/24/2016