UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7132
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEROME THOMAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. David A. Faber,
Senior District Judge. (2:93-cr-00196-2)
Submitted: November 7, 2013 Decided: November 14, 2013
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia,
for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin, II, United States Attorney,
William B. King, II, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerome Thomas appeals the district court’s judgment
order denying a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)
(2012). We affirm.
A district court may reduce a sentence in the case of
a defendant whose guidelines sentencing range has been lowered
by the Sentencing Commission. United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d
193, 195 (4th Cir. 2013). Whether to reduce the sentence is
within the court’s discretion so long as it considers the
factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) to the extent
applicable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Smalls, 720 F.3d at
195. The court is not required to reduce the sentence even if
the current sentence is above the amended guidelines range.
United States v. Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 200 (4th Cir. 2010). We
review a district court’s decision on whether to reduce a
sentence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Munn, 595
F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010). Under this standard, we may not
substitute our judgment for that of the district court, but must
determine whether the district court’s exercise of discretion
was arbitrary or capricious. United States v. Mason, 52 F.3d
1286, 1289 (4th Cir. 1995).
The court did not abuse its discretion in considering
the nature and the circumstances of the offense that resulted in
Thomas being arrested. See, e.g., United States v. Osborn, 679
2
F.3d 1193, 1196 (10th Cir. 2012) (the seriousness of the
offense, including the involvement of firearms on multiple
occasions, was a proper basis for denying the § 3582(c) motion).
“[D]istrict courts have extremely broad discretion when
determining the weight to be given each of the § 3553(a)
factors.” United States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669, 679 (4th Cir.
2011). Accordingly, the district court’s determination that
Thomas is still a danger to the public, based in part on the
circumstances that led to Thomas’ arrest, is well within the
court’s discretion. We also conclude that the court acted well
within its discretion when considering Thomas’ post-conviction
conduct, and in concluding that such conduct calls into question
his ability to respect the law and refrain from violence.
Because the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Thomas a sentence reduction, we affirm the
judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3