United States v. Maxwell , 613 F. App'x 740 ( 2015 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT June 2, 2015
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 15-6014
(D.C. No. 5:10-CR-00117-F-1)
MAURICE CHARLES MAXWELL, (W.D. Oklahoma)
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
_________________________________
Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, MURPHY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Convicted of possessing cocaine base with intent to distribute, Mr.
Maurice Maxwell was sentenced to 87 months in prison. After the
sentencing, the U.S. Sentencing Commission adopted Amendment 782,
which led to a reduction in the guideline range for Mr. Maxwell. U.S.S.G.
supp. app. C., amend. 782 (2014).
*
The parties do not request oral argument, and the Court has
determined that oral argument would not materially aid our consideration
of the appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). Thus, we
have decided the appeal based on the briefs.
Our order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except
under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
Based on this amendment, Mr. Maxwell moved for a sentence
reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court denied the
motion, concluding that Mr. Maxwell presented a danger to the public
based on his criminal history and institutional disciplinary record. Mr.
Maxwell appeals. We ask: Did the district court abuse its discretion by
denying a sentence reduction based on a danger to the public? We conclude
that the court did not abuse its discretion; as a result, we affirm.
I. Standard of Review
In considering the district court’s ruling, we apply the abuse-of-
discretion standard. See United States v Sharkey, 543 F.3d 1236, 1238
(10th Cir. 2008). Under this standard, we can reverse only if the district
court made a clear error of judgment or went beyond the bounds of
permissible choice. United States v. Dorrough, 84 F.3d 1309, 1311 (10th
Cir. 1996).
II. Sentencing Reductions Under § 3582(c)(2)
In exercising its discretion, the district court had to conduct a two-
step inquiry to determine whether to grant a sentence reduction. Dillon v.
United States, 560 U.S. 817, 824-25 (2010).
The first step was to determine whether the defendant was eligible
for a sentence reduction. United States v. McGee, 615 F.3d 1287, 1292
(10th Cir. 2010). This step is not at issue here because the government
2
does not challenge Mr. Maxwell’s eligibility. Government’s Br. at 6; see 8
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10.
The second step involved consideration of the factors set out in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a). McGee, 615 F.3d at 1292. The district court considered
these factors and found a public danger based on Mr. Maxwell’s criminal
history and institutional violations. Appellant’s App. at 109-10.
Considering the need “to protect the public from further crimes,” the
district court denied the motion. Id. at 109 (quoting § 3553(a)(2)(C)).
Mr. Maxwell argues that the district court gave too little weight to
his youth, his troubled background and history of mental illness, and the
institutional punishments already imposed for his infractions. But the
district court weighed these considerations. Id. at 109, 140–41. In doing
so, the court acknowledged Mr. Maxwell’s youth and the fact that his most
recent institutional violation had occurred eleven months earlier. Id. at
109. Notwithstanding these factors, the court believed Mr. Maxwell
presented a public danger. Id. The district court had the discretion to
balance the factors as it did.
The district court could reasonably focus on Mr. Maxwell’s criminal
history and prison disciplinary records, for federal law requires courts to
consider the factors under § 3553(a) when determining whether to reduce a
sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). These factors include the
3
defendant’s history, his characteristics, and the need to provide deterrence
and protect the public from future crimes. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1),
(a)(2)(a)–(c) (2012); see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B)(ii) (2014)
(instructing the court to consider “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.S.G. § 1B1.10, cmt. n. 1(B)(iii)
(2014) (allowing consideration of “conduct of the defendant that occurred
after imposition of the term of imprisonment”). Thus, the court acted
within its discretion in denying Mr. Maxwell’s motion.
III. Generality of the District Court’s Consideration of Public Safety
Mr. Maxwell argues the guidelines and accompanying comments fail
to tell courts how to consider public safety, creating a “catch-all
justification” to rationalize a “generalized belief that Mr. Maxwell ought to
stay in prison.” Appellant’s Opening Br. at 12. In Mr. Maxwell’s view, the
district court relied on its generalized belief that more time in prison
would maximize public safety. Id.
We reject this argument. Regardless of whether the Sentencing
Commission should have given greater detail, our review is limited,
focusing solely on whether the district court abused its discretion. The
guidelines and accompanying comments allow district courts to use their
discretion in considering public safety when asked to reduce a sentence.
4
The court acted within the bounds of its discretion given the existing
guidelines and comments.
Mr. Maxwell also criticizes the district court for considering the
infractions committed in prison. Appellant’s Opening Br. at 17-18. We
reject this criticism, for we have held that a district court can consider
prison infractions in determining whether to deny a § 3582(c)(2) motion.
See United States v. Osborn, 679 F.3d 1193, 1196 (10th Cir. 2012)
(holding that prison disciplinary reports could justif y denial of a motion to
reduce the sentence under § 3582(c)(2)).
IV. Conclusion
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a sentence
reduction. As a result, we affirm.
Entered for the Court
Robert E. Bacharach
Circuit Judge
5