United States of America v. Gerald Plaze Thomas

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GERALD PLAZE THOMAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-50040
D.C. No. 2:07-cr-01142-VBF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 21, 2014**
Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Gerald Plaze Thomas appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
JAN 27 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

Preliminarily, we reject the government’s contention that we lack
jurisdiction over this appeal. See United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1158 (9th
Cir. 2013).
Thomas contends the district court abused its discretion by failing to explain
why it rejected Thomas’s claims that (1) the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010
undermined the government’s original sentencing argument that crack cocaine is
more dangerous than powder cocaine, and (2) his recent criminal history was
minor. The record reflects that the district court addressed these arguments, and
provided a sufficient explanation to permit meaningful appellate review. See
United States v. Trujillo, 713 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2013).
Thomas also contends that the district court erred by failing to consider
whether reducing the sentence would endanger the community, pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B)(ii). The district court did not err because it adopted
its prior finding that Thomas’s underlying crime was “injurious to society,” and
concluded that Thomas failed to proffer any new evidence that would alter the
district court’s original conclusion.
Finally, Thomas contends that the district court abused its discretion by
denying his motion because his positive attributes support a reduction in sentence.
The court was aware of and considered Thomas’s mitigating circumstances, but
13-50040 2

-- 2 of 3 --

properly based its decision to deny the motion on the need to protect the public and
reflect the seriousness of the offense, and the need for deterrence. See United
States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010).
AFFIRMED.
13-50040 3

-- 3 of 3 --