2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-6-2010 

# U SA v . R andy C ole m an P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-3041

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . R a ndy C o le m an" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1018. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1018NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT
N o. 09- 3041

__________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. RA NDY C OL E M AN, a l s o k n o wn a s S T E VE N J OHNS ON; also k n o w n as S T E V E N L E W IS ; al so k n o w n as K H A B IR H A F IZ

R andyC ol eman, A ppel l ant O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 2- 01- cr - 00038- 001) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. Paul S. D i amond Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

on M ay10, 2010 B efor e: B A R R Y and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges and H I L L M A N *, D i s t r i ctJ udge ( O pi ni on fi l ed J ul y6, 2010 )

*H onor abl e N oel L . H i l l m an, U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctJ udge fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.2 O P I N I O N
RO TH , C i rcui tJudg es: R andyC ol eman appeal s t he deni al of hi s m ot i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3582( c) fora s ent ence m odi fi cat i on bas ed on the r etr oact i ve amendm ent s t o t he cr ack c ocai ne Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derhi s m ot i on under 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 2 3 1 , a n d we h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I. Backg r ound C o le m a n w a s c o n v ic te d o f , in tera lia , p o ss e ss in g c ra c k c o c a in e w ith th e in ten t to di s t r i but e, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U
. S. C . § 841( a) ( 1)
. H e r ece i ved a s ent ence of 220 m ont hs i ncar cer at i on. A ft erappea l i ng hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence , C ol eman fi l ed a § 3582
m ot i on t o m odi fyhi s s ent ence . T hatm ot i on w as bas ed on A m endment706 t o § 2D 1. 1 of t he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , w hi ch r etr oact i vel yr educe d t he bas e off ens e l evel forcr ack
c o c a in e c o n v ic tio n s . U .S .S .G . A p p . C , A m e n d . 7 0 6 (N o v . 1 , 2 0 0 7 ). T h e D istric t C o u rt f

o u n d th a t th is a m e n d m e n t ap p lied to C o lem a n a n d w o u ld re su lt i n a s ent ence r educt i on; how ever , i tdeni ed C ol eman’ s m ot i on bas ed on hi s pos t - s ent ence conduct , i ncl udi ng an as s aul ti n w hi ch he s t abbed a not heri nm at e ei ghtt i m es . C ol eman a r g u e s t h a ti twa s e r r o rf o rt h e Di s t r i c tCo u r tt o c o n s i d e rh i s p o s t - s e n t e n c e c o n d u c t . He
ar gues fur t hert hathe w as ent i t l ed t o an evi dent i aryhear i ng, as he coul d have i nt r oduced evi dence t hathe had a ct ed i n s el f def ens e, t hathe had thr ee y ear s of good conduc t , t hathe3

h a d p a id h is a ss e ss m e n ts a n d f in e s in f u ll, a n d th a t h e h a d c o m p lete d o v e r 1 ,0 0 0 h o u rs in G E D cl asses . II. D i s cus s i on B e c a u se § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) p ro v id e s th a t a “ c o u rt m ay re d u c e th e te rm o f im p ri s o n m e n t,”
w e re v ie w th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d e n ia l f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . U

ni t ed Stat es v. St

yer , 573 F. 3d 151, 153 ( 3d C i r . 2009)
. N ot onl y does a cour t have di s cr et i on t o det erm i ne i f a modi fi cat i on i s w a r r a n t e d , b u ti ta l s o h a s d i s c r e t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e i f a n e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g i s n e c e s s a r y. I d. Sect i on 3582( c) ( 2) r equi r es cour t s t o con side r th e appl i cabl e fa ct or s s etfor t h i n 18 U . S. C . § 35 5 3 ( a ) , i n c l u d i n g t h e n e e d “ t o p r o t e c tt h e p u b l i c f r o m f u r t h e rc r i me s o f

t he defe ndant
. ” 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) ( 2) ( C )
. In addi t i on, cour t s m aycons i derpos t - s ent enci ng conductw hen rul i ng on a sen te nce modi fi cat i on m ot i on. U . S. S. G . § 1B 1. 10, cmt . n. 1 (B )( iii)
. H e re , the D istric t C o u rt c o n sid e re d th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs a s w e ll as C o lem a n ’s p o sts ent ence conduct , i ncl udi ng notonl yt he ass aul tbutal s o C ol eman’ s educa t i onal cour s es and hi s paym entof all fin es and as s es s m ent s . T he D i s t r i ctC our tw ei ghed thes e fa ct or s and det erm i ned that , even c r edi t i ng C olem an ’s a sse r t i on t hatt he as s aul tw as j us t i fi ed s el fdefe ns e, C ol eman pr es ent ed a publ i c s afe t yr i s k. I tt her efor e deni ed hi s m odi fi cat i on m ot i on. I n doi ng s o, t he D i s t r i ctC our tw ei ghed the r el evantfac t or s . W e ca nnotconcl ude thatt he C our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng C ol eman’ s m ot i on.4

W e lik e w ise f

in d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t a b u se its d isc re tio n in re a c h in g th is det erm i nat i on w i t houtan evi dent i aryhear i ng. C ol eman di d notr eques ta hea r i ng and, even i f he ha d , C o lem an has noti dent i fi ed anyi nfor m at i on he w oul d have pr es ent ed thatt he D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t al rea d yco n side r. III . C oncl usi on A ccordi ng l y , w e w i l l affirm t he D i stri ctC ou rt ’s order deny i ng C olem an’s r equ est fora modi fi ed s ent ence .