Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-02212/USCOURTS-ca10-15-02212-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Victor Lindsey
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

VICTOR LINDSEY, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 15-2212 

(D.C. No. 2:01-CR-00588-MCA-3) 

(D. N. Mex.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before LUCERO, MATHESON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Federal prisoner Victor Lindsey appeals the district court’s denial of his motion 

for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). His appointed counsel has 

submitted an Anders brief stating this appeal presents no non-frivolous grounds for 

reversal. We have carefully reviewed the record, and we agree. Exercising jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. 

 

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, 

except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may 

be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 

10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

June 7, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-2212 Document: 01019633182 Date Filed: 06/07/2016 Page: 1 
- 2 - 

I. BACKGROUND 

A. Conviction and Sentence 

In 2002, Mr. Lindsey was convicted of possession and distribution of cocaine base 

and marijuana, two firearm offenses, and conspiracy. The district court sentenced him to 

181 months in prison. When his federal sentence ends in July 2016, he will begin a life 

sentence in Michigan state prison for a murder conviction. Mr. Lindsey has an extensive 

history of prison misconduct, including eight instances of mail abuse. United States v. 

Lindsey, No. 2:01-cr-00588-MCA (D.N.M. 2003), ECF No. 412-1 at 3-21 (listing Mr. 

Lindsey’s disciplinary actions). 

B. Motion to Reduce Sentence 

Mr. Lindsey has filed seven motions seeking a sentence reduction. Id., ECF Nos. 

350, 373, 396, 399, 402, 404, 406. This appeal arises out of the district court’s denial of 

his § 3582(c)(2) motion filed on January 20, 2015, which sought a reduction based on 

Amendment 782. 

On October 16, 2015, the court held a motion hearing. Mr. Lindsey, through 

counsel, contended he did not pose a threat to public safety because his life sentence in 

Michigan prison will begin immediately after his federal imprisonment ends. 

On October 30, 2015, the district court denied the motion after considering the 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and concluding Mr. Lindsey did not warrant a sentence 

reduction based on his criminal history and prison misconduct. 

On November 9, 2015, Mr. Lindsey filed a notice of appeal. 

Appellate Case: 15-2212 Document: 01019633182 Date Filed: 06/07/2016 Page: 2 
- 3 - 

C. Anders Brief 

On March 28, 2016, Mr. Lindsey’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), which 

authorizes counsel to request permission to withdraw where counsel 

conscientiously examines a case and determines that any appeal would be 

wholly frivolous. Under Anders, counsel must submit a brief to the client 

and the appellate court indicating any potential appealable issues based on 

the record. The client may then choose to submit arguments to the court. 

The Court must then conduct a full examination of the record to determine 

whether defendant’s claims are wholly frivolous. If the court concludes 

after such an examination that the appeal is frivolous, it may grant 

counsel’s motion to withdraw and may dismiss the appeal. 

United States v. Calderon, 428 F.3d 928, 930 (10th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). 

 Counsel indicated “[t]he only potential issue is whether the District Court abused 

its discretion in denying Mr. Lindsey’s motion for reduction of sentence.” Anders Brief 

at 4. But counsel stated that argument was not meritorious and therefore sought to 

withdraw given the absence of non-frivolous arguments on appeal. 

D. Mr. Lindsey’s Response 

Mr. Lindsey filed a response to the Anders brief. He argues his appellate counsel 

has been ineffective because he (1) failed to investigate “newly discovered evidence,” 

(2) filed the Anders brief even though he argued Mr. Lindsey’s sentence should be 

reduced at the October 30, 2015 hearing, and (3) failed to contact or visit Mr. Lindsey. 

Response at 2-4. 

Appellate Case: 15-2212 Document: 01019633182 Date Filed: 06/07/2016 Page: 3 
- 4 - 

II. DISCUSSION 

A. Sentence Reduction 

1. Standard of Review 

“The scope of a district court’s authority in a sentencing modification proceeding 

under § 3582(c)(2) is a question of law that we review de novo. We review a denial of a 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Lucero, 713 F.3d 1024, 

1026 (10th Cir. 2013) (quotations, citation, and brackets omitted). 

2. Legal Standard 

Federal courts are generally prohibited from “modify[ing] a term of imprisonment 

once it has been imposed.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). But when the sentence is “based on a 

sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission,” 

district courts “may reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set 

forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable.” Id. § 3582(c)(2). 

Amendment 782 to the Guidelines went into effect on November 1, 2014, 

U.S.S.G. app. C suppl., amend. 782 at 74 (2015), and “reduced the base offense levels 

assigned to drug quantities in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, effectively lowering the Guidelines 

minimum sentences for drug offenses.” United States v. Goodwin, No. 15-3054, 2015 

WL 7974633, at *2 (10th Cir. Dec. 7, 2015) (unpublished); see 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A) 

(permitting citation to unpublished decisions for their persuasive value). The amendment 

applies retroactively. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(A), (d); United States v. Kurtz, No. 15-

2140, 2016 WL 1212066, at *3 (10th Cir. Mar. 29, 2016). 

Appellate Case: 15-2212 Document: 01019633182 Date Filed: 06/07/2016 Page: 4 
- 5 - 

Although an amendment to the Guidelines make a prisoner “eligible for a sentence 

reduction under § 3582(c)(2),” it “in no way creates a right to sentence reduction.” 

United States v. Osborn, 679 F.3d 1193, 1195-96 (10th Cir. 2012) (emphasis in original). 

3. Analysis 

The sole basis for Mr. Lindsey’s motion for reduction was that he did not pose a 

danger to public safety. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(c) (stating district courts “shall 

consider” “the need for the sentence imposed . . . to protect the public from further crimes 

of the defendant”). The district court considered the § 3553(a) factors and concluded a 

sentence reduction was not warranted. In particular, the court determined Mr. Lindsey 

posed a threat to the public based on his violent past and history of prison misconduct. 

Consistent with § 3582(c)(2), the court considered the § 3553(a) factors in 

analyzing whether to reduce the sentence and “state[d] the reasons for its actions.” 

United States v. Dorrough, 84 F.3d 1309, 1311 (10th Cir. 1996). We have reviewed the 

record and discern no basis to conclude the district court abused its discretion in denying 

Mr. Lindsey’s motion for reduction of sentence. 

B. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 

Mr. Lindsey contends his appellate counsel was ineffective. In United States v. 

Galloway, we stated, “Ineffective assistance of counsel claims should be brought in 

collateral proceedings, not on direct appeal. Such claims brought on direct appeal are 

presumptively dismissible, and virtually all will be dismissed.” 56 F.3d 1239, 1240 (10th 

Cir. 1995). There are “rare instances” when “an ineffectiveness of counsel claim may 

need no further development prior to review on direct appeal.” Id. This is not one of 

Appellate Case: 15-2212 Document: 01019633182 Date Filed: 06/07/2016 Page: 5 
- 6 - 

them. There is no developed record or district court opinion on the matter. Mr. Lindsey 

must raise the argument in a collateral proceeding. 

III.CONCLUSION 

Our independent review of the record uncovered no potentially meritorious 

arguments. We therefore grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss this appeal. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT, 

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 15-2212 Document: 01019633182 Date Filed: 06/07/2016 Page: 6