### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 30482 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appell ee

v. KENDALL WILLIAMS , Defendant

- Appell ant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:07

- CR

- 51

- 1

Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge : * Kendall Williams, federal prisoner # 30070

- 034, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence

. In 2007, Williams pleaded guilty to possessing crack cocaine with the intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841; possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug

- trafficking offense, in violation o f 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). With a total

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 24, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-30482 Document: 00513438185 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/24/2016No. 15

- 30482

2 offense level of 23 and a criminal history score o f III, he was sentenced to 71 months for the § 841 and § 924(c) charges , with a mandatory

- consecutive 60

- month term on the § 924(c) charge . In August 2014, Williams filed the instant pro se § 3582(c)(2) motion, seeking a two

- level reduction to his offense level based on retroactive Amendment 782 and his post

- sentencing rehabilitative efforts. T he district court’s decision to deny the motion despite Williams’s eligibility for a sentence reduction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Henderson , 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011). If the record shows that the district court gave due consideration to the m otion as a whole and considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, even implicitly, then there is no abuse of discretion. See United S tates v. Whitebird , 55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995) ; see also United States v. Evans , 58 7 F.3d 667, 673 (5th Cir. 2009). Williams argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion, urging that the denial was based on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence and an incomplete consideration of the § 3553(a) factors. He asserts that a proper assessment of the evidence and factors, including the

non - serious nature of his underlying offense, as well as his personal history and characteristics, including his pursuit of ed ucational, vocational, and drug

- treatment opportunities while in prison, weighed in favor of awarding a sentencing reduction. T he district court had before it Williams’s arguments in favor of a sentence reduct ion; the original and reduced guidelines ranges; Williams’s criminal history, including three prior drug o ffenses; a synopsis of his post

- sentencing conduct , including approximately seventeen di sciplinary violations , which infractions included threats of b odily harm; and the Government’s opposition to the requested sentencing reduction, urging that Case: 15-30482 Document: 00513438185 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/24/2016No. 15

- 30482

3 Williams’s early release would pose a threat to public safety. T he record thus reflects that the district cour t appropriately considered Williams ’s § 3582(c)(2) motion as a whole, implicitly considered the § 3553(a) factors, and took into account the danger to the community that m ight result from a reduction in hi s term of imprisonment

. S ee Evans , 587 F.3d at 673 ; see also United States v. Smith, 595 F.3d 1322, 1323 (5th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, Williams has not demonstrated any abuse of discretion on the district court’s part. See Whitebird , 55 F.3d at 1010

. AFFIRMED. Case: 15-30482 Document: 00513438185 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/24/2016