Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10992/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10992-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher Marlin
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10992

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

CHRISTOPHER MARLIN,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:06-CR-30

Before BARKSDALE, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Christopher Marlin, federal prisoner # 35544-177, appeals the denial of 

his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) sentence-reduction motion based on Amendment 782 

to the Sentencing Guidelines (lowering § 2D1.1(c) drug-quantity table’s base 

offense levels). Liberally construing his pro se brief, Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 

222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993), he contends the court erred by failing to: adequately 

explain its decision; allow him to respond to new information provided to the 

 

* 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 16, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10992 Document: 00513506140 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/16/2016
No. 15-10992

2

court before his sentencing hearing (an Amendment 782 worksheet prepared 

by the probation officer and provided, inter alia, to Marlin); consider his postsentencing conduct; and avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, thereby 

fulfilling the goals of Amendment 782. 

Section 3582(c)(2) grants a court the discretion to modify a defendant’s 

sentence if he “has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a 

sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing 

Commission”. Once a reduction is authorized, the court determines whether it

is warranted based on consideration of the § 3553(a) factors and “the danger to 

any person or the community that may be posed by a reduction”. U.S.S.G. 

§ 1B1.10, cmt. n.1(B)(i)–(ii). It also “may consider” the defendant’s postsentencing conduct. § 1B1.10, cmt. n.1(B)(iii). Therefore, the court’s decision 

is reviewed for abuse of discretion; its interpretation of the guidelines, de novo;

and its findings of fact, for clear error. United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 

672 (5th Cir. 2009). 

Marlin’s assertions are refuted by the record and foreclosed by precedent. 

A district court is not required to explain its § 3582-motion denial. See id. at 

672–73. Nonetheless, the record shows the court expressly considered Marlin’s 

motion as a whole, the § 3553(a) factors, and his post-sentencing conduct. 

Additionally, the record demonstrates Marlin had the opportunity to respond 

to the Amendment 782 worksheet before sentencing because the court ordered 

his being able to do so, and he addressed the worksheet in responding to the 

Government’s motion opposing his sentence reduction. Finally, the assertion 

the denial of the sentence reduction creates unwarranted sentencing 

disparities is foreclosed. See United States v. Smith, 595 F.3d 1322, 1323 (5th 

Cir. 2010). 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-10992 Document: 00513506140 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/16/2016