Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited 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- 30485 Su m m ar yC 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. T H E R O N D E M O IN E B O S L E Y , 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 W es t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 6: 03- C R
- 60031- 1 B ef ore K IN G , ST E W A R T , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Th er on D em oi ne B os l ey, fede r alpr i so ner# 12 064- 035, appeal s t he deni al o f h is m o tio n to re d u c e h is s e n te n c e p u r s u a n t t o 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ). W e revi ew t h e deci si on w h et h er t o g ran tor den y a § 3 582 (c) ( 2) m ot i on foran abu se o f d is c r e tio n . Un i t ed S t ate s v. E van s, 5 8 7 F .3d 6 6 7 , 6 7 2 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). B os l ey ar gues t hatt h e d i st r i c tc our tabus ed it s di sc r et i on by denyi ng a r e duc t i o n b as e d o n t he m i no ro f fe ns e s i n hi s pr i s o n di s ci pl i n ary r e c o r d a nd w ith o u t co n sid e rin gh is l aterposit ive accom pl i shm en t s. Post- sentenci n g cond u ct United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 18, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 08-30485 Document: 00511029709 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/18/2010N o. 08- 30485

2 of t he d efen d a n tt hatoc c urs af t eri m pos i t i on o f

t he o r i gi nals ent enc e m ay be c ons i der ed byt he di st r i c tc our ti n det er m i ning w h eth er a r educ t i on s houl d be g r a n te d . S ee§ 1B 1. 10, com m en t . (n . 1( B ) (i i i) ) . E ven i n l i gh tof B osl ey’ s l ater accom pl i shm en t s, B osl ey’ s di sci pl i n ary recor d su ggests an i n ability or u n w i l l i n gn e ss to com pl y w i t h pri son rules an d regu l ati on s. Th eref ore, B osl ey h as not sh ow n tha tthe di st ri ctcou rta bu sed i t s d i scr et i on b y den yi n g rel i ef on t h i s basi s. Bos l e y ar gue s t hatt he di s t r i c tco ur ter r e d bydeny i ng hi s m o t i o n wi t ho ut givi n g h i m an opp ort u n i t y t o be hea rd. A defenda n t n eed not be present w h en a “proc eedi n g i n volves t h e cor rect i on or redu ct i on of sentence u n der R u l e 3 5 or 1 8 U . S . C . § 35 8 2 (c) . ” F ED . R. C RIM . P . 43(b) ( 4) . H e al so argues t h at th e di st ri ct c o ur tfail ed t o indi c at e t hati tc o ns i de r e d t he fac t o r s s e tf o r t h i n § 3 55 3( a) a nd § 1 B 1. 10. A l t h ou gh a di st ri ctcourti s r equ i red t o consi der t h ese fact ors, i ti s not req u i red to pro vid e rea son s f or it s d en i a lo f a § 3 5 8 2 m oti on or to ex p l a i n i ts c o n s id e r a tio n o f th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to r s . Se eEvan s , 587 F . 3d at 674 . Th e rec ord r e f l e c t s t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur tc o ns i de r e d Bo s l e y’ s s ubs e que n tp l eadi ngs a nd im p lic itlyco n s id e r e d t h e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to r s . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. W h i t ebi rd , 55 F .3d 1 0 0 7 , 1 0 1 0 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 5 ). B os l ey al soar gues t hatt he di st r i c tc our ter r ed byc ons i der i ng hi s c r i m i nal hi s t o rya nd h i s po s s e s s i o n o f af i r e ar m , b o t h o f

w hi c h he a s s e r t s w e r e a l r e ad y c ons i der ed i n t he cal c ul at i on of h i s or i gi nalsent enc e. B os l ey has no ts how n t hat t h e di st ri ctcourtabu sed i t s di scr et i on as § 3553(a) ( 1) requi res t h e di st ri ctcourt t o c o ns i de r“t he na t ure and c i r c um s t anc e s o f o f fe ns e a nd t he hi s t o r y and c h a r a c te r is tic s o f d e fe n d a n t.” Fi nal l y, c i t i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. Jon es, 489 F . 3d 679 ( 5th C i r. 200 7) , B osl ey argu es t h at t h e di st ri ctcourterr ed byconsi deri n g h i s un adj u di cat ed arrest s. Th e di st r i c tc our tm ent i oned t he ar r ests in p as si ng, buti tt w i c e s t at ed t hat B osl ey’ s pri son d i sci pl i n ary recor d alone w as suf f i ci en tt o j u st i f

y t h e d e n ialof rel i ef an d i tal so c on si dered severalother cl earl y perm i ssibl e fact ors. A s t h ere Case: 08-30485 Document: 00511029709 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/18/2010N o. 08- 30485

3 i s n o i n d i ca ti on th a t th e m ere m en ti on of B osley ’ s u n a dj u d i ca ted p ri o ra r r ests h ad an y bea ri n g on t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s deci si on t o den y rel i ef, B osl ey h as not s ho w n t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur ta bus e d it s di s c r e t i o n. AF F I RMED. Case: 08-30485 Document: 00511029709 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/18/2010