Case: 21-10538 Document: 00516177845 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/24/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 24, 2022
No. 21-10538
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Arnold Crayton,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:02-CR-174-9
Before Barksdale, Costa, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Arnold Crayton pleaded guilty in 2003 to conspiracy to possess, with
intent to distribute, more than five kilograms of a mixture and substance
containing cocaine and 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing
cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). He
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-10538 Document: 00516177845 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/24/2022
No. 21-10538
was sentenced to: 135 months’ imprisonment; and a five-year term of
supervised release. His term of imprisonment was reduced in 2008 to 120
months under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (modification of an imposed term of
imprisonment). During his supervised release, which began in 2010, Crayton
was convicted of possession with intent to distribute marihuana and was
sentenced to 60 months’ imprisonment. Consequently, his supervised
release was revoked, and he was sentenced to another 60-month term of
imprisonment, to be served consecutively. Our court affirmed the revocation
sentence. United States v. Crayton, 597 F. App’x 291, 292 (5th Cir. 2015).
Proceeding pro se, Crayton appeals the denial of his motion in 2021 to
reduce his revocation sentence under the First Step Act of 2018, § 404, Pub.
L. No. 115–391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222 (2018). Crayton asserts the district court
abused its discretion in denying his motion by: overemphasizing his criminal
history; failing to properly account for his mitigative post-sentencing
conduct; and failing to place itself in the time frame of his original sentencing
proceeding.
As reflected above, a sentence reduction vel non pursuant to the First
Step Act is generally reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v.
Jackson, 945 F.3d 315, 319 (5th Cir. 2019). Along that line, the court
considering the requested reduction has broad discretion because “[n]othing
in [§ 404] shall be construed to require a court to reduce any sentence”. First
Step Act, § 404(c). On the other hand, “[a] court abuses its discretion when
[it] makes an error of law or bases its decision on a clearly erroneous
assessment of the evidence”. United States v. Larry, 632 F.3d 933, 936 (5th
Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Although the court concluded Crayton was eligible for a sentence
reduction, it exercised its discretion to deny the motion after considering the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. The court concluded that a reduction
2
Case: 21-10538 Document: 00516177845 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/24/2022
No. 21-10538
was not warranted based on Crayton’s extensive criminal history and post-
sentencing conduct. See United States v. Hegwood, 934 F.3d 414, 418 (5th Cir.
2019) (explaining reduced sentence under First Step Act at discretion of
court); see also Jackson, 945 F.3d at 321–22 & n.7 (noting that court can
consider post-sentencing conduct in determining whether sentence
reduction warranted). Crayton’s mere disagreement with the court’s
weighing of the sentencing factors is not sufficient to demonstrate an abuse
of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693–94 (5th Cir.
2020) (explaining defendant’s disagreement with court’s balancing factors
not sufficient ground for reversal).
Finally, there is no indication in the record that the court failed to
adhere to the proper framework when denying Crayton’s motion. See
Hegwood, 934 F.3d at 418 (explaining if sentence reduction is permissible
under First Step Act, “[t]he district court decides on a new sentence by
placing itself in the time frame of the original sentencing, altering the relevant
legal landscape only by the changes mandated by the . . . Fair Sentencing
Act”).
AFFIRMED.
3