United States of America v. Angelo Patterson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6867
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANGELO PATTERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (4:09-cr-00018-D-1)
Submitted: November 18, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Angelo Patterson, Appellant Pro Se. Eleanor T. Morales,
Assistant United States Attorney, Joshua Bryan Royster, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Angelo Patterson appeals the district court’s order denying
his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
(2012). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
We review a district court’s decision not to reduce a
sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion and its
subsidiary factual determinations for clear error. United
States v. Mann, 709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 2013). A court
abuses its discretion if “it acts arbitrarily or irrationally,
fails to consider judicially recognized factors constraining its
exercise of discretion, relies on erroneous factual or legal
premises, or commits an error of law.” United States v. Briley,
770 F.3d 267, 276 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
A district court may reduce the sentence of a defendant who
was sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a Sentencing
Guidelines range subsequently lowered by the Sentencing
Commission. United States v. Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 200 (4th
Cir. 2010). Whether to reduce a sentence, and the extent to
which a sentence should be reduced, are matters within the
discretion of the district court. United States v. Smalls, 720
F.3d 193, 195 (4th Cir. 2013); see Dillon v. United States, 560
U.S. 817, 827 (2010). In deciding whether to grant a reduction,
the district court must consider the applicable 18 U.S.C.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
§ 3553(a) (2012) factors, as well as “the nature and seriousness
of the danger to any person or the community that may be posed
by a reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment.” U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B)(i), (ii)
(2015). It also may consider the defendant’s postsentencing
conduct. Id. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B)(iii).
Contrary to Patterson’s arguments on appeal, the district
court’s order denying his motion demonstrated its consideration
of the individual facts and circumstances of his case, including
Patterson’s postsentencing efforts at rehabilitation. The
district court appropriately considered the nature and
seriousness of Patterson’s offense in determining whether a
sentencing reduction was warranted. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1),
(2); USSG § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B); United States v. Osborn, 679
F.3d 1193, 1196 (10th Cir. 2012) (considering similar factors in
upholding denial of sentence reduction). Further, given the
available record, we conclude that the court committed no clear
error in finding that a reduction in Patterson’s sentence would
pose a threat to public safety. See United States v. Manigan,
592 F.3d 621, 631 (4th Cir. 2010) (defining clear error).
Ultimately, in light of the “extremely broad discretion” enjoyed
by a district court when weighing the § 3553(a) factors, see
United States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669, 679 (4th Cir. 2011), we

-- 3 of 4 --

4
discern no abuse of discretion in the court’s decision to deny
Patterson a reduction.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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

-- 4 of 4 --