The H onor abl e Rober t W
. Sweet , of t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C our t f or t he So ut her n D i s t r i ct of N ew Y or k, * sittin g b y d e sig n a tio n . 1 08- 1625- cr U SA v. H epbur n ( B or den)
UN ITED STA TES CO URT OF AP P EALS F OR TH E S ECO N D CI RCU IT Aug us t T er m, 200 8 (A rgue d: Apr

il 2 , 20 09 De cid ed: Apr il 1 7, 2 009 Am end ed: Apr il 2 2, 2 009 ) Do cket No . 08 -1 625 -c r U NI T ED S TATES O F A M ERI CA ,

Appellee , v. J AM E S B ORDEN ,

De fe ndant -A ppella nt . B ef or e: C AB RA N E S and H ALL , Circuit Jud ges , and S WEET , District Judge .* Defendant appe als from a final order of the United States District Court f or the Southern Di s tr ict of New Yor k ( Denis e Cot e, Judge

), inwhi ch the D is tr

ict Cou r t d ecli nedto r edu ce B or den ’s sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We hold that the appropriate standard of review to apply to a distr

ict court’s ruling on a motion unde r 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is abuse of dis cretion, and
we co ncl ud e that

th e Di s tr ict Cou r t didno t ab us e it s di s cr et io n i n d ecli ni ng t o r edu ce d ef end ant ’s
s ent enc e. Af fi r med
. J OHN P. C OL L I NS , J R ., A s s is tan t U ni te d S tat es At to r ney (M ich ael J . G ar cia, Unit ed S tat es At to r ney , on the brief , Kather in e P ol k F ailla, As s is tan t U ni te d S tat es1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) sta te s in p e r tin e n t p a r t th a t: 1 [ I ] n t he c as e of a def endant who has bee n s ent ence d t o a t er m of i m pr i s onm ent ba s ed on a s ent enci ng r ang e t hat ha s s ubs equent l y be en l owere d by t he Se nt enci ng C om m i s s i on . . . , upon m ot i on o f t he def endant or t he D i r ect or of t he Bure au of

Pri s ons , or on i t s own m ot i on, t he c our t m ay r educe t he t er m of i m pr i s onm ent , af

t er con s i deri ng t he f

act or s s et f

or t h i n s ect i on 3 553( a) t o t he e xt ent t hat t hey ar e a ppl i cab l e, i f

s uch a r educt i on i s con s i s t ent wi t h a ppl i cab l e po l i cy s t at em ent s i s s ued by t he S e n te n c in g C o m m iss io n . 2 At to r ney , of counsel

), Of fi ce o f the U ni te d S tat es At to r ney fo r th e So uthern D is tr

ict of New Yor k, New Yor k, N Y, for the United States of America
. D A V I D A. L E W IS , F ede r al D ef end er s of New Yor k, I nc. , App eals B ur eau, New

Yor k, N Y, for James Bo rden
. J OS É A. C AB R ANES , Circuit Jud ge : Defendant James Borden appeals from a final order of the United Sta tes Dis trict Court for th e So uthern D is tr

ict of New Yor k ( Denis e Cot e, Judge

), in which the District Court decline d to reduce Borden’s s entence purs uant to 18 U.S.C . § 3582(c)(2). We w rite for the purpose of s tating 1 that abuse of discretion is the appropriate standard of review to appl y to a district court’s ruling on a
mo ti on un de r 18 U. S. C . § 35 82 (c)(2 ). In t hi s ca se, we co nc lu de tha t th e D ist ric t C ou rt d id no t a bu se its dis cretion in declining to reduce Borden’s sentence, and a ccordingly affirm the final order of

the Di s tr ict Cou r t. BAC KGROUND On January 30, 2003 , Borden was convicted, a fter a jury trial, of conspir acy to distr ibute and poss ess with intent to dis tribute 2.58 grams of crack coca ine, in viol ation of 21 U.S.C . § 846, a nd po s s es s in g wi thin te nt

to di s tr ib ut e the s ame drugs , invio lat io n o f 2 1 U. S.C. § 84 1(a)( 1) , 84 1 (b)( 1) (C) . At

th e s ent enc in g he ar

in g onJ uly 25 , 20 03, th e Di s tr ict Cou r t n ot ed B or den ’s “[e]l even
con vic ti on s fr omado les cen ce thr ough the e nt ir et y of hi s adult lif e,” bef or e s ent enc in g hi m principally

to a term of ninety-six months impr isonment—the upper end of the range provided for3

by the U ni te d S tat es Sen te nci ng G ui del in es (“ U.S .S. G. ” or

“G ui del in es ”) . Ap pellan t’ s App . at 46- 47. The Distr

ict Court then stated that it was imposing such a sentence “be cause of [its] concern abo ut r ecidivi s m an d the n eedto pr ot ect th e pu bl ic. ” Id . at 47. On direct a ppeal, another panelof this Cou r t af

fi r medB or den ’s con

vic ti onands ent enc e. Se e U nit ed Stat es v. H epbur n (B o rden) , 86 Fed. App ’x 4 75 (

2dCir . 20 04)
. On April 12, 2004, Borden filed a motion in the C ourt of Appea ls to r eca ll the manda te from the District Court, s o that he could file a la te petition for panel rehea ring. Rel ying on the Supreme Court’s then-r ece nt decision in Crawford v. Wa shington , 54 1 U. S. 3 6 ( 200 4) , B or denargue d th at h e was deniedhi s r

igh t t o co nf

r on t an d cr os s -e xamin e on e of hi s co- def

end ant s . O n M ay 25 , 200 4, apan el o f thi s Cou r t gr ant ed B or den ’s mo ti onto r ecall the m and ate ands ub s equ ent ly
r ema nd ed the c as e t o the D is tr ict Cou r t t o d et er mi ne whether B or denwas ent

it ledto a new

tr ial
. See Or der of M ay 25 , 20 04, Uni

te d St ate s v . H epbur n (B o rden) , No. 03-1459 (2d Ci r. May 25, 2004); Or der of Aug us t 3 , 20 04, Uni

te d St ate s v . H epbur n (B o rden) , No. 03-1459 (2d Ci r. Aug. 3, 2004 ). On J anu ary 5, 200 5, the D is tr

ict Cou r t d eni ed B or den ’s mo ti onfo r a new tr ial . Reco r d o n Ap peal (“ROA” ) doc. 56. Borden filed a timely notice of appe al. A panel of this Court affirmed the Di s tr ict Cou r t’ s denial

of B or den ’s mo ti onfo r

a new tr ial , an d i t r ema nd ed the c as e t o the D is tr ict Court to determine whether Borden should be res entence d purs uant to this Court’s then-recent decision in Uni

te d St ate s v . Cr o sby , 39 7 F .3d103 (2 d Ci r . 20 05)
. See United States v. Bor den , 170 Fed. App ’x 7 55 (

2dCir . 20 06) . O n J un e 9, 200 6, the D is tr ict Cou r t f ile d a M emo r and umandOp inio n i n whi ch i t d ecli nedto r es ent enc e B or den . RO A do c. 6 3. Ef fe ct ive No vem ber

1, 2 007 , the U ni te d S tat es Sen te nci ng Co mmis s io n ( “Com mi s s io n”) lo wer ed the b as e of

fe ns e lev el f

or cr ack c ocai ne o ff

ens es . See Amendments to the Sentencing Guid eli nes fo r

th e Unit ed S tat es Cou r ts , 72 Fe d. Reg. 28, 571 - 2 8,5 72 ( 200 7) . O n D ecem ber

11,4

2007, the C ommiss ion voted to apply this amendment retroactively, w hich mea nt that defendants
s ent enc ed u nd er

th e f ormer cr ack c ocai ne G ui del

in es wouldbe e lig

ib le f or a s ent enc e r edu ct

io n. See United Sta tes v. J

ones , 53 1 F .3d163 , 17 9 (

2dCir . 20 08) ; Uni

te d St ate s v . Re ga lado , 51 8 F .3d143 , 15 0 ( 2d Cir . 20 08) ; U. S.S .G . § 1 B 1.1 0( c) (i ndicat in g the ap pl

icat io n o f thi s pr ov

is io n t o am end men t 7 06, as modified by 711). On February 28, 20 08, the United Sta tes Pr obation Office (“USPO”) issued a supplement to Bor den’s Pres entence Report, in whic h it conclude d that Bor den wa s eligible for a
s ent enc e r edu ct

io n u nd er th e newly a men dedGuid eli nes , an d that th e app lic abl e am end ed Guidelines range w as sixty-thr ee to seventy-eig ht months . Appell ant’s App. at 53. The supplement

a lso sta te d th a t, a cc ord in g t o a pro gre ss re po rt o f th e Bu re a u o f Pri son s (“ BOP” ), Bord en wa s a “good inmate ,” and tha t his B OP caseworker had determined tha t he was not a public safety
con cern. Id

. In an order of M arch 4, 2008 , the Distr ict Court instructed Borden and the gove rnment to
s ub mi t thei r

views onwhe th er

B or den ’s s ent enc e s ho ul d b e mo di fi ed i n l igh t o f the n ewly -a men ded Guid eli nes andth e US PO ’s s up pl eme nt al r epo r t. Id . at 25- 26. T he g ov er nm ent

s ub mi tt ed a l et te r br ief onM ar ch 5 , 20 08, s tat

in g that B or denwas eligib le f

or a s ent enc e r edu ct

io n b as ed o n a r evi s ed Guidelines range of sixty-three to seventy-eight months impr isonment, and did not object to a
r edu ct io n wi thinth at r ang e. On March 11, 2008, Borden’s court- appointed c ounsel requested a reduction to sixty-thr ee months impris onment. On March 14, the District Court entered a M emo r and umOp inio n an d O r der , inwhi ch i t d ecli nedto r edu ce B or den ’s s ent enc e. See United States v. Bo rden , N o. 02- cr -9 29 ( DL C), 200 8 WL

705 957 (S .D .N .Y. M ar . 14 , 20 08) . T he D is tr ict Court noted at the outset that “[t]his is not the fir st occasion on which the C ourt has had to
con s id er a r e- s ent enc in g of

this def end ant ,” id

. at *1, a nd then expla ined its earlier deci sion not to resentence Borden purs uant to Cro sby , 39 7 F .3d103 :5

I n that Or der , the Co ur t n ot ed that a s ent enc e at

th e t op of

th e guid eli nes r ang e, which is unusual, “w as intended as a c lear signal tha t Bor den deserved a l engthy sentence, a nd specificall y a sentenc e of 96 months. As des cribed at the sentence , the Cou r t w as in fluen cedby B or den ’s ‘co ns is te nt ’ an d ‘ con s tan t’ vio lat io n o f the l aw, andth e ne ed t o p r ot ect

s oci et y, am ong other

thin gs .” Bor den , 20 08 WL

705 957 , at

*1. T he D is tr

ict Cou r t thens tat ed that

it had“co ns id er ed the f

act or s s et out in 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a

) and the dang er that the defendant poses to the community” and
con clu dedth at “ inan ex er cis e of th e Cou r t’ s di s cr et

io n, th e de fe nd ant ’s te r m o f i mp r is on men t w

ill
no t b e r edu ced [. ]” Id

. B or denfileda ti mel

y no ti ce o f a pp eal. DISCUSSI ON B ef or e thi s Cou r t, B or denargue s th at the D is tr ict Cou r t ab us ed i ts di s cr et

io n i n d eny

in g hi m a sentence reduction beca use (1) “the [D]is trict [C]ourt err oneously relied on its earlier dec ision not to reconsider its sentence pursuant to Uni te d St ate s v . Cr o sby , 39 7 F .3d103 (2 d Ci r . 20 05) , as th e bas is for denying a sentence reduction in these circumstances, although the fa ctual a nd lega l bases for
con s id er ati onof

th e s ent enc e inth e t

wo c ir cum s tan ces wer e co mp let ely dif fe r ent ;” ( 2) th e Di s tr

ict Court’s “original rationale for the 96-month sentence it imposed was subst antiall y undercut” beca use the post- sentencing information prepared by the US PO “indicated tha t Mr . Borden was no longer the dang er to public safety that the court had ea rlier perceived him to be; ” and (3) “the [C]ourt appeared not to understand the import of the Sentenc ing Commission’s amendments
r edu cing the s ent enc es fo r cr ack c ocai ne. ” Ap pellan t’ s B r . at 9. We hav e no t p r evi ou s ly d et er mi nedth e app r op r iat e s tan dar d o f r evi ew t o ap ply t o a dis tr ict

co urt ’s ru li ng

on amo ti on un de r 18 U. S. C . § 35 82 (c)(2 ). W e h ave no te d, ho we ve r, t ha t “ [t] ho se circuits that have a ddress ed the issue have de termined that such a deci sion s hould be review ed for abu s e of di s cr et io n. ” Cortorr

eal v. United Sta tes

, 48 6 F .3d742 , 74 3 (

2dCir . 20 07) (c it

in g United Sta tes v. Ro dri gu ez -Pen a , 47 0 F .3d431 , 43 2 ( 1s t Ci r . 20 06) ); Uni te d St ate s v . M o re no , 421 F.3d 1217, 1 219 (11thT he a ppl i cab l e po l i cy s t at em ent pr ovi des t hat i f a def endant ’ s G ui del i nes r ang e ha s “ s ubs equent l y be en 2 l owere d as a r es ul t of

an am endm ent t o t he G ui del i nes M anua l l i s t ed i n s ubs ect i on ( c) bel ow, t he c our t m ay r educe t he d e fe n d a n t’s te r m o f im p r iso n m e n t a s p r o v id e d b y 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ),” a n d “ a n y su c h re d u c tio n in th e d e fe n d a n t’s te r m o f im p r iso n m e n t sh a ll b e c o n sis te n t w ith th is p o lic y sta te m e n t.” U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .1 0 (a )(1 ). 6 Cir . 20 05) ). Purs uant to statute, a “court may r edu ce the t er m o f i mp r

is on men t” of

“a d ef end ant who has bee n s ent enc ed t o a t er m o f i mp r is on men t b as ed o n a s ent enc in g r ang e that has s ub s equ ent

ly b een lo wer ed b y the S ent enc in g Com mi s s io n” upo n the c ou r t’ s con s id er ati onof “the f act or s s et fo r thin
s ect io n 3 553 (a) ,” s o l ong as “s ucha r edu ct io n i s con s is te nt

with ap pl icab le p ol icy s tat eme nt s is s ued by the Sente ncing C ommiss ion.” 18 U.S .C. § 3582(c)(2)(emphasis added). Because the statute 2
states that a district court may reduce the term of impris onment, it clea rly allow s for a district court to exercise its discretion when considering a motion to reduce a sentence brought pursuant to § 35 82(c) (2). Acco r di ngl

y, we jo inou r

s is te r cir cui ts inho ldin g that

we r evi ew a dis tr

ict cou r t’ s dec is io n t o d eny

a mo ti onun der

18 U .S. C. § 3 582 (c)(

2) fo r abu s e of di s cr et io n. See, e.g. , United Sta tes
v. P ard ue , 36 F.3d 429, 430 (5th Cir. 1994) (“The decision to reduce a sentence under [18 U.S. C.] § 35 82(c) (2) i s di s cr et

io nar y. We ther ef

or e r evi ew ch all eng es fo r

abu s e of di s cr et io n. ” ( in te r nal cit ati onomit te d) ), cert. denied , 51 4 U. S. 1 113 (1 995 ); see also United States v. LaBonte , 70 F. 3d139 6, 1 411 (1 s t Ci r . 19 95) (“ T he l aw pe r mi ts , b ut do es no t r equ

ir e, the dis tr

ict cou r t t o [ r edu ce d ef

end ant ’s
s ent enc e]. B ecau s e thi s dec is io n i s com mi tt ed t o the tr ial cou r t’ s di s cr et

io n, th e co ur t o f a pp eals will interfere only if the record reveals a pa lpable abuse of that discretion.”(internal citation omitted)),

re v ’d o n o the r g

ro unds , 52 0 U. S. 7 51 ( 199 7) . As we h ave p r evi ou s ly s tat ed, “[a] dis tr ict cou r t h as abu s ed its dis cretion if it based its ruling on an e rroneous view of the law or on a cle arly erroneous
assess ment of the evidenc e, or rendered a dec ision that cannot be loc ated wi thin the range of permi s s ib le d ecis io ns .” Sims v. Blot , 5 34 F.3 d 1 17 , 1 32 (2 d C ir. 20 08 ) (i nte rna l a lt er a ti on , c it a ti on s,7

andqu ot ati onmar ks omit te d)
. Based upon our r eviewof the record and the arguments of counsel, we conc lude that the Di s tr ict Cou r t didno t ab us e it s di s cr et io n i n d ecli ni ng t o r edu ce B or den ’s s ent enc e pu r s uan t t o 1 8 U.S .C. § 358 2( c) (2). T he D is tr ict Cou r t d ecid ed ag ain s t a s ent enc e r edu ct io n o nly af

te r “r evi ew[ in g] th e r elev ant

r eco r ds con cerni ng the d ef end ant , in clu di ng the tr ans cr ip t o f the s ent enc in g pr oce edi ng, and . . . c onsider[ing] the factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the dange r that the defendant po s es to th e co mm unit

y.” Bor den , 20 08 WL

705 957 , at

*1. T he D is tr

ict Cou r t c lear

ly b as ed i ts view in large pa rt on what it had ea rlier described as Bor den’s “‘consistent’ and ‘constant’ violation of the law” andacco r di ngl

y “the n eedto pr ot ect

s oci et y.” Id . T ho ughit

is true that

th e US PO ’s
s up pl eme nt al r epo r t n ot ed that B or den ’s B OP cas ewo r ker haddet er mi nedth at h e di d n ot po s e a threat to society, the Distr ict Court was ac ting wellwithin its authority in deciding tha t, based upon B or den ’s ext ens ive cr

im in al his to ry, a s ent enc e of ni net y- s ix m on th s im pr

is on men t w as app r op r

iat e. I n s um , we c ann ot

con clu de that

th e Di s tr ict Cou r t ab us ed i ts di s cr et

io n i n d ecli ni ng t o r edu ce B or den ’s or

igi nal s ent enc e. T urni ng t o B or den ’s other argum ent s , we n ot e that , co ntr ary t o his as s er ti on , the D is tr ict Court did indeed a ppear to “understand the import of the Sentenc ing Commission’s amendments reducing the sentence s for crack c ocaine .” Appe llant’s Br . at 9. As noted, it wa s the Dis trict Court th at, sua sponte , ordered the parties to br ief whether Borden’s s entence should be reduced in light of th e new am end men ts andth e US PO ’s s up pl eme nt al r epo r t. See Appella nt’s App. at 25-26 (Order of M ar . 4, 200 8)
. Fi nally, we co ncl ud e that

th e Di s tr ict Cou r t didno t “ er r on eou s ly r el[ y]” up onit s earlie r decision not to resentence Borden following this Court’s decision in Cro sby , 39 7 F .3d103
. App ell ant ’s B r . at

9. Ra th er , inher

M ar ch 1 4, 2 008 Or der , the e xp er ien cedandabl e Di s tr

ict J ud ge8

s im ply no te d that

“[ t] hi s [wa s ] n ot

th e f ir s t o ccas io n o n whichth e Cou r t . . . h ad t o co ns id er a r es ent enc in g of

this def end ant ” an d ex pl ain ed the f act or s th at s he c on s id er ed i n r eachin g he r or igi nal dec is io n, whi ch s he f

ou nds till t o b e r elev ant

tw o ye ar s lat er . Bor

den , 20 08 WL

705 957 , at

*1. We fi ndno er r or

inher analys is
. CONCLUSI ON For the reasons s tated above , the March 14, 2008 Order of the Distr ict Court decli ning to reduce Borden’s s entence purs uant to 18 U.S.C . § 3582(c)(2) is AFFIRMED.