Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-08-30616/USCOURTS-ca5-08-30616-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jody Russell
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-30616

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JODY RUSSELL,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:06-CR-160-4

Before BENAVIDES, PRADO and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jody Russell appeals the denial of her motion to reduce her sentence

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), in which she argued that her sentence should

be reduced based on the amendment to the Guideline addressing crack cocaine.

The district court denied the motion on the ground that Russell’s original

sentence of 51 months was within the reduced guidelines range of 41 to 51

months in prison. Russell avers that this reason is legally insufficient.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 18, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

 Case: 08-30616 Document: 00511029645 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/18/2010
No. 08-30616

2

In her § 3582(c) motion, Russell averred that, in fashioning a reduced

sentence, the sentencing judge was obligated to take into account the prior

sentence imposed and was to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The

district court implicitly had before it those factors Russell now contends it failed

to consider, and this court can assume that it considered those factors prior to

denying Russell’s § 3582(c) motion. See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667,

673 (5th Cir. 2009). The district court’s failure to provide further explanation

for denying Russell’s § 3582(c) motion did not constitute an abuse of discretion.

See Evans, 587 F.3d at 672, 674 (holding that a district court need not provide

any reasons at all for denying a § 3582(c)(2) motion).

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 08-30616 Document: 00511029645 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/18/2010