Case: 12-10225 Date Filed: 12/31/2012 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
_____________________________
No. 12-10225
Non-Argument Calendar
_____________________________
D. C. Docket No. 1:93-cr-00252-UU-7
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
KEVIN ALEXANDER,
a.k.a. Cal,
a.k.a. Ninja,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________________________
(December 31, 2012)
Before HULL, MARTIN, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
Case: 12-10225 Date Filed: 12/31/2012 Page: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
In 2008, Kevin Alexander obtained a sentence reduction. Now Alexander,
through counsel, appeals the district court’s denial of his request for a further
reduction in sentence, one pursuant to Amendment 750 of the U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines. For background, see 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
This appeal presents this decisive issue:
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying
Alexander’s § 3582(c)(2) motion as unwarranted based on its
consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
Any error in the district court’s failure to recalculate Alexander’s sentence under
the amended guideline was harmless because that court found a reduction
unwarranted after its consideration of the § 3553(a) factors: a determination that
was no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s decision.
See generally United States v. Keene, 470 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2006).
The district court here clearly stated that it would deny Alexander a
reduction in sentence (regardless of his eligibility) due to the court’s consideration
of the § 3553(a) factors. Furthermore, the court’s decision to deny Alexander a
2
Case: 12-10225 Date Filed: 12/31/2012 Page: 3 of 3
reduction was reasonable. The court did not detail in its opinion on the instant
motion how the court had weighed the various § 3553(a) factors in reaching its
decision. But it was not obliged to do so. The record reveals that the court was
aware of, and took proper account of, the pertinent factors, and the court did not
abuse its discretion in denying Alexander the requested sentence reduction.
AFFIRMED.
3