Opinion ID: 6500010
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: “Serial Thief” Characterization

Text: Mr. Crouch also takes issue with the district court’s characterization of him at sentencing as a “serial thief.” R., vol. I at 57. But he does not contend the district court relied on this finding in denying his §3582(c)(1)(A) motion. And even if it did, the court did not abuse its discretion because the evidence presented at the sentencing hearing supports that finding, and Mr. Crouch has not established that it was clearly erroneous. See, e.g., R., vol. I at 135–43; see also United States v. Craine, 995 F.3d 1139, 1157 (10th Cir.) (“A finding of fact is clearly erroneous only if it is without factual support in the record or if the appellate court, after reviewing all of the evidence, is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 502 (2021).