Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50540/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50540-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sedrick Demon McCarther
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50540

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SEDRICK DEMON MCCARTHER,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:12-CR-296-1

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Sedrick Demon McCarther, federal prisoner # 04204-180, is appealing 

the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of his 60-month 

sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession with intent to 

distribute cocaine base. He argues that he was entitled to a two-level reduction 

in his offense level based on Amendment 782 to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 and that, in 

denying the motion, the district court placed too much emphasis on his 

 

* 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

September 12, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50540 Document: 00513673210 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/12/2016
No. 15-50540

2

criminal history and did not consider his post-sentencing conduct. 

Additionally, McCarther contends that the majority of the § 3582 motions filed 

in the Eastern District of Texas are granted and that there was no basis for his 

disparate treatment.

The district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence under 

§ 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion and its factual findings are 

reviewed for clear error. United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th 

Cir. 2011). When considering a § 3582(c)(2) motion, the district court is to 

conduct a two-step analysis. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010). 

The court must first determine whether the defendant is eligible for a 

reduction under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. Id. at 827. If he is, the district court must 

then “consider any applicable [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors and determine 

whether, in its discretion,” a reduction is warranted under the facts of the case. 

Id.

The district court recognized that McCarther was eligible for the 

reduction of sentence and also considered the documentation that he submitted 

reflecting his post-sentence conduct. Id. However, the district court 

determined that, based on McCarther’s extensive criminal history, there was 

a continued need to impose a sentence sufficient to protect the public from his 

wrongdoing and to deter McCarther from engaging further criminal activity. 

Thus, the record reflects that the district court considered the appropriate 

policy statements and § 3553(a) factors in determining that the initial 60-

month sentence remained reasonable. McCarther has not demonstrated that 

the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion. Se Dillon, 560 

U.S. at 827. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(B)(i)-(iii)).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-50540 Document: 00513673210 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/12/2016