Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Curtis Oneal RHINE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-25
Citations: 493 F. App'x 612
Docket Number: No. 12-10465
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Curtis Oneal RHINE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 493
Pages: 612–612

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Curtis Oneal RHINE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-10465
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 25, 2012.
Curtis Oneal Rhine, Memphis, TN, pro se.
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Proceeding pro se, Curtis Oneal Rhine, federal prisoner # 36888-177, appeals the district court's denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction. He contends the court abused its discretion by: improperly relying on his alleged participation in the Fish Bowl drug-trafficking ring; failing to consider the various classes he completed during imprisonment; and refusing to reduce his sentence in retaliation for his successful appeal in United States v. Rhine, 583 F.3d 878 (5th Cir.2009).
The district court's decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir.2009). In considering Rhine's motion, the district court was required to, and expressly did, assess the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 237 (5th Cir.2009). The court properly considered Rhine's alleged participation in the Fish Bowl drug-trafficking ring as part of his history under § 3553(a)(1). United States v. Rhine, 637 F.3d 525, 529 (5th Cir.2011), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 1001, 181 L.Ed.2d 743 (2012). Although Rhine contends the district court failed to properly consider his post-sentencing conduct, such consideration is not required. Evans, 587 F.3d at 673 & n. 10; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment n. l(B)(iii). Rhine's retaliation claim also fails:
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.