Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-31059/USCOURTS-ca5-14-31059-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sebastian Richardson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-31059

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SEBASTIAN RICHARDSON, also known as Bam Bam,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:94-CR-50068-2

Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Sebastian Richardson, federal prisoner # 08744-035, appeals the district 

court’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) reduction of his sentence in light of the Fair 

Sentencing Act of 2010 from 420 months of imprisonment to 405 months of 

imprisonment; his sentence falls within the reduced guidelines range.

Section 3582(c)(2) permits the discretionary modification of a defendant’s 

sentence “in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of 

* 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 23, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-31059 Document: 00512978597 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/23/2015
No. 14-31059

imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered 

by the Sentencing Commission.” § 3582(c)(2); see United States v. Doublin, 572 

F.3d 235, 237 (5th Cir. 2009). If the court determines that the movant is 

eligible for a sentence modification pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, as it did in 

this case, it must then consider the § 3553(a) factors to decide whether a 

reduction “is warranted in whole or in part under the particular circumstances 

of the case.” Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010); see United 

States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 673 (5th Cir. 2009). The district court’s decision 

whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for an abuse of 

discretion. Evans, 587 F.3d at 672.

Contrary to Richardson’s assertions, the district court’s order shows that 

it considered the § 3553(a) factors, and it was under no obligation to reduce his 

sentence further. See Evans, 587 F.3d at 673. Nor was the district court 

required to provide reasons for why it chose not to further reduce his sentence. 

Id. at 674. Richardson fails to show that the district court abused its discretion. 

Id. at 672.

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 14-31059 Document: 00512978597 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/23/2015