United States v. Burns

Case: 20-50681 Document: 00516208847 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/18/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 18, 2022
No. 20-50681
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Tommy Delando Burns,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:06-CR-89-1
Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Tommy Delando Burns, federal prisoner # 35499-177, was convicted
of one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine
and two counts of aiding and abetting the distribution of crack cocaine.
Following a remand, he was resentenced to concurrent terms of 324 months
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-50681 Document: 00516208847 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/18/2022
No. 20-50681
in prison and five years of supervised release, but his sentences were
subsequently reduced, and he is now serving concurrent terms of 262 months
in prison.
The district court denied Burns’s motion under Section 404 of the
First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404, 132 Stat. 5194, 5221, to
reduce his total sentence of imprisonment and his supervised release term.
Burns appeals that ruling, which we review for abuse of discretion. United
States v. Batiste, 980 F.3d 466, 469 (5th Cir. 2020).
Burns contends that the district court failed to adequately explain the
reasons for its decision. However, the arguments for and against a sentence
reduction were briefed by the parties and before the district court. This court
ordered a limited remand, and the district court issued an order explaining
that Burns was eligible for a sentence reduction under Section 404 but that
the court, in its discretion, had determined that no reduction in Burns’s
sentence or term of supervised release was warranted. It stated that the
decision was based on its consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the
facts of the case, the severity of Burns’s offense, the fact that it had previously
granted a “significant departure” based upon Amendment 782 to the
Guidelines, and the fact that Burns’s current sentence falls within the
applicable sentencing guidelines range. Nothing more was required. See
United States v. Whitehead, 986 F.3d 547, 551 (5th Cir. 2021). Thus, the
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See Batiste,
980 F.3d at 479.
AFFIRMED.
2