Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-60273/USCOURTS-ca5-15-60273-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jermaine Latham
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60273

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JERMAINE LATHAM,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:01-CR-55-5

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jermaine Latham appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) motion to 

reduce his 235-month sentence for possession of powder cocaine with intent to 

distribute. Latham contends that comments made by the district court during 

an unrelated § 3582(c) hearing three weeks after the denial of his motion

demonstrate, in retrospect, that it failed to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

factors in denying him relief. See United States v. Larry, 632 F.3d 933, 936 

 

* 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

May 31, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60273 Document: 00513527484 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/31/2016
No. 15-60273

2

(5th Cir. 2011). Finding no abuse of the district court’s discretion, we affirm. 

See United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1009 (5th Cir. 1995).

Both in its written order and in a separate statement of reasons, the 

district court expressly cited § 3553(a) as the basis for its decision not to grant 

Latham a sentence reduction. See Larry, 632 F.3d at 936. Latham argues, 

however, that any assumption that the district court contemporaneously 

considered § 3553(a) is rebutted by its subsequent comments, in which the 

court failed to recall having previously denied Latham’s motion and noted the 

divergence between its treatment of his motion and its normal § 3582(c) 

protocol. See generally United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 673 (5th Cir. 

2009). This argument fails for two reasons. First, the district court’s

consideration of § 3553(a) in this case is not merely implicit but, rather, is 

explicitly documented. Second, the events of the subsequent § 3582(c) hearing 

are irrelevant to our review because they “were not before the district court at 

the time of the challenged ruling.” Theriot v. Par. of Jefferson, 185 F.3d 477, 

491 n.26 (5th Cir. 1999). 

Because the record reflects the district court’s reliance on § 3553(a) to 

deny Latham’s § 3582(c) motion, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-60273 Document: 00513527484 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/31/2016