Case: 09-30146 Document: 00511086539 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2010
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 20, 2010
No. 09-30146
Conference Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
STEVEN RAY JONES,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:03-CR-50032-2
Before SMITH, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Steven Ray Jones, federal prisoner # 11732-035, appeals the district
court’s grant of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence based on
the amendments to the crack cocaine Guideline. Jones contends that the district
court abused its discretion by not granting a reduction to the low end of the
recalculated guidelines range. He also contends that in light of § 3582(c)(2)’s
requirement that district courts consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a), the district court’s failure to give reasons for the sentence imposed
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .
R. 47.5.4.
Case: 09-30146 Document: 00511086539 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2010
No. 09-30146
constitutes a significant procedural error or, alternatively, an abuse of
discretion.
We review a district court’s decision to reduce a sentence for an abuse of
discretion and its interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. United
States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed (Jan. 28,
2010) (No. 09-8939). In Evans, this court noted that because the district court
was under no obligation to reduce the defendant’s sentence at all, it was under
no obligation to reduce the sentence even further within the recalculated range.
Id. at 673. Further, the district court was not required to give reasons for its
granting the defendant’s § 3582(c)(2) motion but not selecting “a satisfactorily
low enough sentence within the recalculated range.” Id. at 674. Accordingly,
Jones’s contentions are foreclosed by Evans, and the district court did not abuse
its discretion. See id. at 672-74.
AFFIRMED.
2