United States v. Raymond Hawthorne, Jr. , 358 F. App'x 595 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •            IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    January 4, 2010
    No. 09-30265
    Summary Calendar                    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    RAYMOND JOSEPH HAWTHORNE, JR., also known as Tweet,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Louisiana
    USDC No. 6:99-CR-60043-2
    Before BENAVIDES, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Raymond Joseph Hawthorne, Jr., federal prisoner # 330242, was
    sentenced to 235 months in prison following his plea of guilty to conspiring to
    distribute cocaine base (crack).          Following amendments to the Sentencing
    Guidelines that lowered the offense levels for crack cocaine offenses, the district
    court granted a motion by Hawthorne pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and
    reduced his sentence to 188 months of imprisonment. Hawthorne now appeals,
    challenging the limits on the district court’s discretion set forth in U.S.S.G.
    *
    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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
    No. 09-30265
    § 1B1.10 and arguing that the district court had the authority to impose an even
    lower sentence. Hawthorne’s arguments are foreclosed in light of our recent
    decision in United States v. Doublin, 
    572 F.3d 235
    , 236-39 (5th Cir. 2009),
    petition for cert. filed (Sept. 21, 2009) (No. 09-6657).
    Hawthorne also argues that his § 3582 motion for a reduction of sentence
    required a hearing with him present.         Because the district court “merely
    modifie[d] an existing sentence” rather than impose a new sentence after the
    original sentence had been set aside, Hawthorne was not entitled to a hearing.
    See United States v. Patterson, 
    42 F.3d 246
    , 248-49 (5th Cir. 1994); F ED. R. C RIM.
    P. 43.
    Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-30265

Citation Numbers: 358 F. App'x 595

Judges: Benavides, Per Curiam, Prado, Southwick

Filed Date: 1/4/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/2/2023