Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kelvin M. JONES, also known as Kevin Maurice Jones, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-12
Citations: 370 F. App'x 477
Docket Number: No. 09-30226
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kelvin M. JONES, also known as Kevin Maurice Jones, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 370
Pages: 477–478

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kelvin M. JONES, also known as Kevin Maurice Jones, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-30226
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 12, 2010.
Catherine M. Maraist, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
Rebecca L. Hudsmith, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Kelvin M. Jones appeals from the district court's denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction in his sentence. He argues that the district court erred: in denying the motion based solely upon his criminal history and without otherwise explicitly referencing the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); in failing to acknowledge the disproportionate punishments for crack and powder cocaine; and in not conducting a live evidentiary hearing.
We review the district court's decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion and begin by noting that the court "was under no obligation to reduce [the prisoner's] sentence at all." The court need not mention the § 3553(a) factors — or any of its reasons — when ruling upon a § 3582(c)(2) motion, but the record makes clear that the court did consider both the § 3553(a) factors and the crack sentencing disparities. Indeed, the district court weighed Jones's extensive criminal history — and, implicitly, his continuing danger — when determining that Jones warranted no reduction. Although this court has mused whether in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding the prisoner should get "an evi-dentiary hearing once he contests] the factual basis of some of the Government's contentions," Jones has not articulated a factual dispute; instead, he seeks a hearing to challenge the district court's conclusions. To this he is not entitled.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5tii 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.
. United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir.2009).
. Id. at 673 (citing United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 238 (5th Cir.2009)).
. See id. at 673-74 (explaining in part that "a court is not required to state findings of facts and conclusions of law when denying a § 3582(c)(2) motion" (citation and quotation marks omitted)).
. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) & (2)(C); U.S.S.G. § lBl.lOcnu. n. l.(B)(ii).
. United States v. Robinson, 542 F.3d 1045, 1052 (5th Cir.2008).
. See United States v. Kelley, 365 Fed.Appx. 560, 561 (5th Cir.2010) (unpublished) (citing United States v. Patterson, 42 F.3d 246, 248-49 (5th Cir. 1994); Fbd.R.Crim.P. 43); United States v. Hawthorne, 358 Fed.Appx. 595 (5th Cir.2010) (unpublished) (same); see also Evans, 587 F.3d at 669 (noting that the district court did not grant a hearing on the § 3582(c)(2) matter).