Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionsho uld not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30624 Su m m ar y C al endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. ED W AR D CO LE M AN , a l s o kno w n a s Li lEdw ar d , D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant
A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he E as t er n D i st r i c t of Loui si ana U SD C N o. 2: 03- C R

- 274- 8
B ef ore G A R W O O D , D E N N IS an d E L R O D , C i rcui t Ju dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * Edw ar d Co l e m an, fe de r alpr i s o ne r # 285 81
- 03 4, pl e ad e d g ui l t y, pur s uant t o a w r i t t e n pl e a ag r e e m e nt , t o c o ns pi r ac y t o di s t r i but e a nd p o s s e s s w i t h i nt e nt t o di s t r i b u t e f

i v e g r a m s o r mo r e o f c o c a i n e b a s e , a q u a n t i t y o f c o c ai ne hyd r o c hl o r i de , 1 00 g r am s o r m o r e o f he r o i n, a nd qua nt i t i e s o f m ar ij uana ( c o unt on e)
. H e al so pl ead ed gu i lty to com m i ssi on of vi ol en t cr i m es i n ai d of
r ac ket ee r i ng ( c ount t w o)
. Col em an w as s ent enc ed t o c on cu rren t t er m s of 121 m on th s i n pr i son on ea ch cou n t. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma y 7, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 08-30624 Document: 00511104576 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/07/2010N o. 08- 30624

2 C ol em an , represented h e re an d below by the F ederal P u bl i c D efen der, ap pea l s t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s or der den yi n g h i s m ot i on f or a redu ct i on of

sentence u n der 18 U
. S
. C
. § 3582 ( c) ( 2), in li gh t of t h e rec en t am en dm en t s t o t h e cr ack cocai n e sentenci n g gu i del i n es. I n den yi n g t h e m ot i on , t h e di st ri ctcourtnoted t hatCol e m an’ s o r i gi nalse nt e nc e w as w i t hi n t he a m e nde d g ui de l i ne s r ang e a nd th a t n o fu r th e r re c o n s id e r a tio n a p p lie d
. C ol em an c ont ends t hat t he di st r i c t c our t a rb i t r a r i l y de ni ed hi s § 3 582( c ) ( 2)
m ot i on w i t h ou tregard t o case- speci f i c fact s, such a s hi s post convict i on re h a b il ita tiv e co n d u ct, or co n sid e ra tion of th e fac to rs in 1 8 U .S .C
. § 3 5 5 3 (a ). C o lem a n co n te n d s a se n te n cin gra n g e ov e rla p , b y itse lf, ca n n o t b e u se d to j u stify t h e d e n ia l o f a r e d u c t io n . A s a n in it ia l m a t t e r , w e r eje c t th e G o v e r n m e n t ’s as s e r t i o n t hat Col e m an w ai ve d t he r i ght t o b r i ng t he i ns t anta ppe alund e rt he te r m s o f h is p le a a g r e e m e n t. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Cool ey , 59 0 F
. 3 d 29 3 , 29 7 ( 5 th C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). T h e d e n ia l o f a § 3 5 8 2 m o tio n is re v ie w e d fo r a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . Un i t ed St a t e s v . Evan s , 5 8 7 F .3d 6 6 7 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). Se c t i o n 3 58 2( c ) ( 2) pe r m i t s t he di s c r e t i o nar y m o di f

i c at i o n o f a de fe nda nt ’ s s e nt e nc e i n c e r t ai n c as e s w he r e t he s e nt e nc i ng r ang e ha s b e e n s ubs e que nt l y l o w e r e d b yt h e S e n t e n c i n gCo m m i s s i o n. Un ite dS ta te s v . D o u b lin , 5 7 2 F .3 d 2 3 5 , 2 3 7 (5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 130 S. C t . 517 ( 200 9)
. I n such ca se s, th e di st ri ctcourtm ay redu ce t h e sentence af t er c o ns i de r i ng t he appl i c ab l e fac t o r s unde r § 355 3( a) a nd t he a ppl i c ab l e g ui de l i ne pol i cy st atem en t s. § 358 2( c) ( 2)
. H ow ever, t h e sentenci n g court i s n otrequi red to p r o v id e re a s o n s fo r its d e n ia l o f a § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) m o tio n o r to e x p r e s s ly e x p la in its co n s i d e r a tio n o f th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to r s . Evans , 5 87 F. 3d a t 6 73
- 74
. I f t he recor d sh ow s t h at t h e di st ri ctcourtgav e d u e consi derati on t o t h e m ot i on as a w h ol e a n d im p l i ci t l y consi dered the § 355 3( a) fact ors, t h ere i s no abu se of d is c r e tio n . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. W h i t ebi rd , 5 5 F .3d 1 0 0 7 , 1 0 1 0 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 5 ). A l t hough t he di st r i c t c our t di d notdi sc uss t he § 3553( a) fac t or s expr es sl y, th e record refl ects th a t i t con sider e d th e m . S e e Evan s , 5 87 F. 3d a t 6 73
. The Case: 08-30624 Document: 00511104576 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/07/2010N o. 08- 30624

Inth e re port to the court fro m thecommittee consi sting of a r epresentativeof the 1 District Atto rney’s Office and a r epresentativeof the Federal Public Defen d er ’ s O ffice, the court was a dvi s edof theori ginalguidelin e range (1 21-1 51 month s), theame nded guideline ran ge(97 -121 month s), that “Defendant is eli giblefor [sectio n] 3 582sentenc e re duction” and of th e fact th at Col emanh ad no prisondisciplin aryrec ord (and Col eman’s moti on to reduc e like wi seme ntion edth at a n d hisc om pl etio no f adru gab u sep ro gra m inp ri so n). We also noteth at at the original se ntencin g the district co ur ts t ated that “You [Col eman] ha d a history hereof run -ins with the law. You were lucky your crimin al histo ry was only II as opposed to II I. I have some que stion about that. Itlo oks like to me Probation might h ave given yo u a littlebit of a break with this crimin al histo ry II rath er than II I.” The court also said at the original se ntencin g t ha tth e sentencing obje ctives of punishment and reh ab ilit ationc ouldb e me t b ya1 2 1 mo nthse nte nce . 3 di st r i c t c our t ’ s dec i si on denyi ng t he m ot i on i ndi c at es t hat i t und er stood that Col e m an’ s o r i gi nals e nt e nc e w as w i t hi n t he a m e nde d g ui de l i ne s r ang e a nd s ho w s t hatt he d i s t r i c tc o ur tc o ns i de r e d t he a m e nde d g ui de l i ne s r ang e b ut determ i n ed that no redu ct i on i n sentence w a s w a rran t ed. U n der t h ese ci rcum st an ces, t he c o ur tgave d u e consi derati on t o t h e m ot i on t o reduce sentence a n d i m pl i c i t l y c ons i der ed t he § 3553( a) fac t or s. M or eo ver , t he r ec or d r ef l ects t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur tw as m ad e aw ar e of Col e m an’ s g o o d c o nduc t i n pr i s o n, a nd th e r e is n o re a s o n to b e lie v e th a t th e d is tr ic t co u r t b e lie v e d e r r o n e o u s ly th a t it c oul d n otreduc e Col em an’ s se nt enc e. Acc or di ngl y, C ol em an has no t s how n t hat 1 th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n w a s a n a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . Se e Evan s , 5 8 7 F
. 3 d at 67 3 -74 ; Wh i t ebi rd , 5 5 F .3 d a t 1 0 1 0 ; Un itedS ta tes v. Ha rr ell , 341 F e d . A p p x . 9 6 5 , 2 0 0 9 W L 2 5 6 6 9 9 8 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). AF F I RMED. Case: 08-30624 Document: 00511104576 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/07/2010