United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-1829

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Marc Allen Cossette

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of North Dakota - Fargo

____________

 Submitted: March 6, 2017

Filed: April 24, 2017

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BENTON, BEAM, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Marc Cossette pled guilty to conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with

intent to distribute. The district court determined that his offense level under the

1

The Honorable Ralph R. Erickson, then Chief Judge, United States District 1

Court for the District of North Dakota.
sentencing guidelines was 36 and sentenced him to 324 months imprisonment, a

sentence at the bottom of the guideline range. Amendment 782 to the guidelineslater

reduced the applicable offense level to 34, which with his criminal history category

VI led to a revised guideline sentencing range of 262 to 327 months imprisonment. 

See U.S.S.G., app. C., amend. 782. Cossette then moved for a sentence reduction

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court denied his motion because it found

he was a danger to the community and had broken a number of rules while in prison. 

Cossette appeals.

We review a sentence reduction decision under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for

abuse of discretion. United States v. Burrell, 622 F.3d 961, 964 (8th Cir. 2010). In

considering a motion for a sentence reduction, a district court first determines the

guideline range that would have applied if the amended guideline had been effective

at the time of the initial sentence. Id. at 963. It then considers the factors listed in 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) to decide if a reduction is appropriate including any potential danger

to others. Id. at 963–64. The defendant's post sentencing conduct may also be

considered. Id. at 964. Although a resentencing proceeding under § 3582(c)(2) is not

considered "a full resentencing," U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(3), the court must provide a

sufficient explanation to allow meaningfulreview on appeal, Burrell, 622 F.3d at 964.

In this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion when denying

Cossette's motion for a sentence reduction after it calculated the extent of a potential

reduction and in light of Cossette's violent criminal history and the danger he posed

to the community. As the district court noted, he had violated rules even while in

prison by twice possessing drugs or alcohol, twice assaulting another person, fighting,

and being in an unauthorized location. Cossette argues that the considerations that

initially led the court to sentence himat the bottom of the guideline range should have

led it to reduce his sentence to the bottom of the amended range. The record makes

clear, however, that the court considered the appropriate sentencing factors,

-2-
adequately explained its reasoning, and did not abuse its discretion in denying the

requested relief.

For these reasons we affirm the order of the district court.

______________________________

-3-