Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clifford SINCLAIR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1993-08-27
Citations: 1 F.3d 329
Docket Number: No. 92-1610
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clifford SINCLAIR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges, and LITTLE , District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 1
Pages: 329–330

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clifford SINCLAIR, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 92-1610.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 27, 1993.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 28, 1993.
Bill Boyd, Boyd & Veigel, P.C., McKinney, TX, for defendant-appellant.
Delonia A. Watson, Joe C. Lockhart, Asst. U.S. Attys., Fort Worth, TX, Marvin Collins, U.S. Atty., Dallas, TX, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges, and LITTLE , District Judge.
District Judge of the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Clifford Sinclair, a federal prisoner, has appealed from the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence, which was filed pursuant to Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. A district court's ruling under Rule 35 will be reversed "only for illegality or gross abuse of discretion." United States v. Lewis, 743 F.2d 1127, 1129 (5th Cir.1984) (quoting United States v. Sparrow, 673 F.2d 862, 864 (5th Cir.1982)). We have reviewed the record and considered the arguments presented, and we do not find that the district court grossly abused its discretion.
AFFIRMED.
. We note that the appellant argues that the standard of review is "abuse of discretion" rather than "gross abuse of discretion." As authority for this standard, the appellant cites United States v. Kirkland, 853 F.2d 1243 (5th Cir.1988). The Kirkland case states that the court will "examine only whether the sentence was illegal or whether the district court abused its discretion." Id. at 1246. As authority for this standard, the Kirkland court cites United States v. Hanyard, 762 F.2d 1226, 1228 (5th Cir.1985). The Han-yard case provides that a district court's ruling on a motion under Rule 35 will be reversed "only for illegality or gross abuse of discretion." Id. (cites omitted). Therefore, the standard of review remains gross abuse of discretion.