United States v. Antonio Smith ( 2020 )

Case: 19-51018 Document: 00515595112 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/08/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 8, 2020
No. 19-51018 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Antonio Larico Smith,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 6:05-CR-32-1
Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Antonio Larico Smith, federal prisoner # 36478-180, appeals the
district court’s denial of his motion for a reduction of sentence under the
First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018), and
the district court’s denial of his motion to reconsider that decision. Smith
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-51018 Document: 00515595112 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/08/2020
No. 19-51018
argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying a sentence
reduction under the First Step Act because there was extensive evidence
showing that his 347-month sentence was longer than necessary to comply
with the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
We generally review a district court’s decision whether to reduce a
sentence pursuant to the First Step Act for abuse of discretion. United States
v. Jackson, 945 F.3d 315, 319 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 2699
(2020). The denial of Smith’s motion for reconsideration is also reviewed
for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Hassan, 83 F.3d 693, 697 (5th Cir.
1996). “A district court abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on an error
of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” United States v.
Quintanilla, 868 F.3d 315, 319 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
Section 404 of the First Step Act gives courts the discretion to apply
the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 to reduce a prisoner’s sentence for certain
covered offenses. § 404, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222; United States v. Hegwood, 934
F.3d 414, 416-17 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 285 (2019). There is no
dispute that Smith’s crack cocaine conviction was a covered offense, as the
district court correctly determined. See Hegwood, 934 F.3d at 417. However,
even if a defendant is eligible for resentencing under the First Step Act, he is
not entitled to it, and the district court has broad discretion in determining
whether to resentence. Jackson, 945 F.3d at 321.
Smith has not shown that the district court’s assessment of the
evidence was clearly erroneous. See Quintanilla, 868 F.3d at 319. Thus,
although Smith disagrees with the weight given by the district court to the
relevant factors, he has not demonstrated that the district court abused its
broad discretion in declining to resentence him in accordance with the First
2
Case: 19-51018 Document: 00515595112 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/08/2020
No. 19-51018
Step Act. See Jackson, 945 F.3d at 319. Accordingly, the judgment of the
district court is AFFIRMED.
3