UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7678
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
PHILIP MARTIN COOPER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen,
District Judge. (2:99-cr-00138-AWA-1)
Submitted: May 17, 2016 Decided: February 1, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and DAVIS,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Philip Martin Cooper, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Marie Yusi,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Philip Martin Cooper appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion seeking a
sentence reduction under Amendment 782. The parties disputed
Cooper’s eligibility for a sentence reduction and whether such a
reduction is warranted in light of the § 3553(a) factors and
Cooper’s postsentencing conduct. In denying the motion, the
court simply checked the “DENIED” box on the form order,
offering no reason for the denial. On appeal, Cooper contends,
inter alia, that the district court erred by failing to show or
set forth any finding of fact or reasons to support the court’s
ruling. Under the circumtances, we agree.
“We review a district court’s grant or denial of a
§ 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion. But the question
of whether a court ruling on a § 3582(c)(2) motion must provide
an individualized explanation is one of law that we consider de
novo.” United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d 193, 195 (4th Cir.
2013) (citation omitted). In deciding whether to grant a motion
for a sentence reduction, the court must first determine whether
the defendant is eligible for the reduction, consistent with
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10 and then “consider
whether the authorized reduction is warranted, either in whole
or in part, according to the factors set forth in § 3553(a),”
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010), “to the
2
extent that they are applicable,” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The
court may also consider “post-sentencing conduct of the
defendant that occurred after imposition of the term of
imprisonment” in determining whether, and to what extent, a
sentence reduction is warranted. USSG § 1B1.10 cmt.
n.1(B)(iii).
We have held that, absent a contrary indication, it is
presumed that the district court has considered the § 3553(a)
factors and other “issues that have been fully presented for
determination.” United States v. Legree, 205 F.3d 724, 728-29
(4th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover,
“in the absence of evidence a court neglected to consider
relevant factors, the court does not err in failing to provide a
full explanation for its § 3582(c)(2) decision.” Smalls, 720
F.3d at 196. However, the sole issue in Legree and Smalls was
not the defendant’s eligibility for the reduction but whether
the district court abused its discretion in assessing the
§ 3553(a) factors and the defendant’s postsentencing conduct.
The instant case is distinguishable, because we cannot
determine in the first instance whether the court concluded that
Cooper was ineligible for a sentence reduction or,
alternatively, whether the court decided that such a reduction
was unwarranted in light of the § 3553(a) factors and Cooper’s
postsentencing conduct. Because the parties presented fully
3
developed, nonfrivolous arguments as to both steps of the
sentence reduction inquiry, we can only speculate as to the
basis for the district court’s decision. Ultimately, we are
unable to assess whether the court abused its discretion in
denying Cooper’s motion
Accordingly, while we take no position as to whether Cooper
is eligible for, or should receive, a sentence reduction under
Amendment 782, we vacate the district court’s order and remand
for further consideration consistent with this opinion. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED
4