Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-51044/USCOURTS-ca5-15-51044-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy D. Jackson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-51044

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TIMOTHY D. JACKSON, also known as Timothy Jackson,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:08-CR-475-5

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Timothy D. Jackson, federal prisoner # 18342-280, appeals the district 

court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentencing reduction 

based on retroactive Amendment 782 to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. The Supreme Court 

has prescribed a two-step inquiry for a district court that is considering a 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010). The 

court must first determine whether a prisoner is eligible for a reduction as set 

 

* 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

November 10, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-51044 Document: 00513755127 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/10/2016
No. 15-51044

2

forth in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a). Id. If he is eligible, then the district court must 

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

in its discretion,” any reduction is warranted under the particular facts of the 

case. Id. at 827. We review the decision whether to reduce a sentence under 

§ 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 

713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011). 

The district court implicitly found Jackson eligible for the reduction but 

determined that a reduction was unwarranted due to his inadequately 

represented criminal history, the need to protect the public, and the need to 

provide adequate deterrence. Jackson contends that this was an abuse of 

discretion, urging that the court gave excessive weight to factors that did not 

justify denial and inadequate weight to factors supporting a reduction, 

including his post-sentencing rehabilitative efforts.

The record reflects that the district court considered Jackson’s motion as 

a whole, gave specific reasons for its denial, and referenced the relevant 

§ 3553(a) factors. Jackson thus cannot show an abuse of discretion on the 

district court’s part. See Henderson, 636 F.3d at 717; United States v. Evans, 

587 F.3d 667, 673 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 

1010 (5th Cir. 1995). 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-51044 Document: 00513755127 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/10/2016