Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kendall WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-24
Citations: 644 F. App'x 305
Docket Number: No. 15-30482
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kendall WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 644
Pages: 305–306

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kendall WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-30482
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 24, 2016.
Kevin G. Boitmann, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Diane Hollenshead Copes, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
Jordan Mark Siverd, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Gary V. Schwabe, Jr., Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Kendall Williams, Inez, KY, pro se.
Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
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 of 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 offense level of 23 and a criminal history score of 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.
The 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 motion as a whole and considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, even implicitly, then there is no abuse of discretion. See United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir.1995); see also United States v. Evans, 587 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 educational, vocational, and drug-treatment opportunities while in prison, weighed in favor of awarding a sentencing reduction.
The district court had before it Williams's arguments in favor of a sentence reduction; the original and reduced guidelines ranges; Williams's criminal history, including three prior drug offenses; a synopsis of his post-sentencing conduct, including approximately seventeen disciplinary violations, which infractions included threats of bodily harm; and the Government's opposition to the requested sentencing reduction, urging that Williams's early release would pose a threat to public safety. The record thus reflects that the district court 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 might result from a reduction in his term of imprisonment. See 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.
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.