United States v. Price

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 2, 2009
No. 08-50610
Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
DEDRICK ANDRE PRICE
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:05-CR-62-1
Before GARWOOD, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Dedrick Andre Price appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a
reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). Price originally was sentenced
to 144-months of imprisonment for distribution of cocaine base and possession
with intent to distribute cocaine base, and he sought to have his sentence
reduced under the amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines that lowered the
offense levels for offenses involving cocaine base. He argues that the district
*
Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 08-50610
court overstated the seriousness of his offenses, as well as his potential danger
to the public, and that his sentence is greater than necessary to achieve the
sentencing goals in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Price also contends that even the
amended guidelines range of 108-135 months of imprisonment is
disproportionately severe.
We review the denial of a § 3582(c) motion for abuse of discretion. United
States v. Shaw, 30 F.3d 26, 28-29 (5th Cir. 1994). The district court considered
the relevant statutory and guidelines provisions. See § 3582(c); 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, p.s. The court relied on the nature of Price’s
convictions, including his prior conviction for terroristic threats and his five-year
sentence for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, which was imposed after
he was sentenced for the offenses involving cocaine base. The court noted the
violent circumstances of the aggravated assault offense and also pointed to the
25 disciplinary incidents in which Price had been involved during his two and
a half years at TDCJ, which included threatening to harm an offender, refusing
to work, creating a disturbance, and failing to obey orders, in finding that Price
had not learned to comply with the rules of society and that his conduct posed
a danger to others. The court held that the original sentence would serve to
protect the public from additional crimes and would give Price the time he
needed for additional educational and vocational training and drug treatment.
Under these circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying the motion for a reduction of sentence. See § 1B1.10, p.s., comment.
(n.1(B)); Shaw, 30 F.3d at 28-29; United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1009-
10 (5th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.
2