The Honor able Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge f or the Southern District of * New Y ork, sitting by

designation. 1 09
- 05 78
- cr U ni t ed Stat es v. Stewart 

### UNITED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE SE CON D C IRCU IT 

## S UM M ARY ORDER

RULI NGS BY SU M M ARY ORDER DO N OT HAVE P RECEDENTI AL EF FE CT. CI TATI ON TO A S UM M ARY ORDER FI LED AF TER J ANUARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S PE RM I TTED AND I S GO V ERNED B Y F E DERAL R ULE OF AP PE LLATE PR OCEDURE 3 2 . 1 . W HEN CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORDER I N A DOCUM ENT F I LED W I TH TH I S COURT, A P ARTY M U S T C I T E E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L APP ENDI X OR A N E L E C T R ON I C D A T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE N OT A T I ON “ SU M M ARY ORDER” ) . A PA RTY CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORDER M US T SER V E A COPY OF I T ON ANY P ARTY NOT REPR ESEN TED BY COUNSEL.

A t a s t at ed t er m of t he U ni t ed St at es C our t of A ppeal s for t he Second C i r cui t , hel d at t he D ani el Pat r i ck M oy ni han U ni t ed St at es C our t hous e, 500 Pear l St r eet , i n t he C i t yof N ew Y or k, on t he 23 dayof Febr uar y , t w o t hous and and t en. rd P R E S E N T : AMALYA L . KEARSE,

P E T E R W
. H A LL, Circuit Judges , J ED S . RAKO FF, District Judge
. *

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --x UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Appellee , -v.- No. 09-0578-c r HORACE STEWART, Defendant- Appellant
.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -x
APP EA RI

NGF OR TH E A PPELLAN T: LU CA S E. ANDI NO , New Y ork, Ne w York. APP EA RI

NGF OR TH E A PPELL EE : S TEP HE N E. F R ANK , Assistant United States A tt o r n e y ( S u s anC o r

k e r y , o nth e b r i e f

) f o r B e nt o nJ.2 Campbell, United States Attorney for the E astern District of Ne w York. This is an appea l the judgme nt of the United States District Court for the Easter n District of Ne w York ( J ohnson, J .) deny ing de fanda

nt-appe llant’s motion for reduc tion of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)( 2). UP ON DU E C ON SID ER AT IONWHE RE OF , it

is h e r e b y ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that th e jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IRM ED
. Def endant- appellant Hor ace Stewart a ppeals fr om the judgme nt of the United States District Court for the Ea stern District of N ew Yor k (Johns on, J

.) deny ing his motion for reduc tion of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)( 2). This Court review s a district court’ s decision to modify

or maintain a se ntence under 18 U .S.C. § 3582(c)(2) under a n abuse of discretion standa

rd. United States v. Borde n , 564 F.3d 100, 101 ( 2d Cir. 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity

with the fac ts of the ca se, its proce dural history , and the sc ope of the issues on
a pp e a l. F or

the fo llo wi ngre a so ns , w e a ff ir m th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s jud g me nt. When presente d with a § 3582(c )(2) motion, the district cour t first must consider whethe r the def endant is elig ible for a

reduc tion by

calc ulating the Guidelines ra ng e that would havebeen applicable had the a

mended Guide lines been in plac e at the time the de fenda nt orig inally

was sentenc ed. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b) (1). I f the de fenda nt is eligible, the district c ourt then may reduc e the se ntence “af

ter c onsideringthe fa ctors set for th in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable .” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2). Her e, the district cour

t determined that Stewart wa s elig ible for a sentenc e re duction, but it declined to grant his sec tion 3582(c)( 2) motion. St ewa rt contends that this dec ision was an3

a bu se of dis c re tio n f

or tw o ma in r e a so ns : ( 1) the c ourt mis a sse sse d th e e vid e nc e of his i n s t i tut i o n a l c o n d

u c t ; an d ( 2 ) th e c o urtd o u

b l e - c o unt e d

h i s c r i m i n a l h i s t o r

y. Stewart’s a

rguments are without merit. First, Stewart c oncede s that the institut ional conduct of

an inmate is re levant to a c onsideration of the section 3553(a) fa ctors on re sentenc ing. SeeU.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, App. Note 1(B )(iii) (“ The c ourt may consider post-se ntencingconduct of th e d ef en d an tth ato cc urr edaf

t er i mp o s i t i o no f th e o ri gi n al t ermo f i mp ri s o nm en ti nd et erm i n i n g . . . [w] hether

a re duction in the defe ndant’s ter m of imprisonment is warra nted . . ..”) . Moreove r, a district cour

t is not prohibit ed fr om consideringa def endant’ s rec ord in eva luating a motion for
rese ntencing . To the contra ry , a cour t is “well within its authority ” in deny ing a rese ntencing motion on the basis of a def endant’ s “extensive criminal history .” Borden , 564 F.3d at 104. The district court explained that its conclusion was “[b]ased upon submissions of counse l and ora l argument, based upon the unenviable r ecord of Mr. Stewa rt, based upon the fac t that Mr. Stewart is an illeg al alien a

nd takinginto consideration all the f actor s in 3553(a) . . ..” The undisputed
e vid e nc e be fo re the c ourt pr ov ide d ampl y

ba sis fo r t

he c ourt to c on c lud e that Ste wa

rt is a
re c idi vis t, a

nd that th e pr e vio us ly

imp os e d s e nte nc e wa s b oth a pp ro priate and

ne c e ssa ry to protec t the public from fur ther c rimes. See18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(1) , (2)( C). Ac c or din g ly , th e jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IRM ED
.

F OR TH E CO UR T: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk