Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 18 views

    United States v. Joshua Cole, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Joshua Cole pled guilty in 2010 to drug conspiracy and possession charges. His original sentencing guidelines range was 292-365 months in prison. The district court granted the government's motion for a downward departure and sentenced Cole to 174 months. 2) In 2014, Cole filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c) for a sentence reduction based on retroactive crack cocaine guidelines amendments. Cole argued his new range was 262-327 months, and requested a 40% reduction to 156 months, matching his original reduction amount. 3) The district court acknowledged Cole's eligibility for a reduction but denied the motion. The appeals court affirmed, finding the district court properly considered the 18 U.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Joshua Cole, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    18 views5 pages
    1) Joshua Cole pled guilty in 2010 to drug conspiracy and possession charges. His original sentencing guidelines range was 292-365 months in prison. The district court granted the government's motion for a downward departure and sentenced Cole to 174 months. 2) In 2014, Cole filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c) for a sentence reduction based on retroactive crack cocaine guidelines amendments. Cole argued his new range was 262-327 months, and requested a 40% reduction to 156 months, matching his original reduction amount. 3) The district court acknowledged Cole's eligibility for a reduction but denied the motion. The appeals court affirmed, finding the district court properly considered the 18 U.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-10-14 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-7025

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Joshua Cole pled guilty in 2010 to drug conspiracy and possession charges. His original sentencing guidelines range was 292-365 months in prison. The district court granted the government's motion for a downward departure and sentenced Cole to 174 months. 2) In 2014, Cole filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c) for a sentence reduction based on retroactive crack cocaine guidelines amendments. Cole argued his new range was 262-327 months, and requested a 40% reduction to 156 months, matching his original reduction amount. 3) The district court acknowledged Cole's eligibility for a reduction but denied the motion. The appeals court affirmed, finding the district court properly considered the 18 U.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    18 views5 pages

    United States v. Joshua Cole, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Joshua Cole pled guilty in 2010 to drug conspiracy and possession charges. His original sentencing guidelines range was 292-365 months in prison. The district court granted the government's motion for a downward departure and sentenced Cole to 174 months. 2) In 2014, Cole filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c) for a sentence reduction based on retroactive crack cocaine guidelines amendments. Cole argued his new range was 262-327 months, and requested a 40% reduction to 156 months, matching his original reduction amount. 3) The district court acknowledged Cole's eligibility for a reduction but denied the motion. The appeals court affirmed, finding the district court properly considered the 18 U.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 5

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 14-7025

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    JOSHUA JULIUS COLE,
    Defendant Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    James C. Dever III,
    Chief District Judge. (5:09-cr-00327-D-1)

    Argued:

    September 17, 2015

    Decided:

    October 14, 2015

    Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    ARGUED: Stephen Clayton Gordon, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC


    DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
    Phillip
    Anthony Rubin, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh,
    North Carolina, for Appellee.
    ON BRIEF: Thomas P. McNamara,
    Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
    Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United
    States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
    Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
    for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    In

    2010,

    Joshua

    Cole

    pled

    guilty

    to

    conspiracy

    to

    distribute, and possession with intent to distribute, more than


    50

    grams

    of

    calculated
    292-365

    cocaine

    Coles

    advisory

    months.

    governments

    base

    Then,

    motion

    for

    and

    cocaine.

    sentencing
    the
    a

    The

    district

    guidelines

    district
    downward

    range

    court

    court
    to

    granted

    departure

    be
    the

    based

    on

    substantial assistance and sentenced Cole to 174 months.

    In

    2014, Cole filed a motion for reduction of sentence under 18


    U.S.C. 3582(c), relying on the 2010 retroactive amendments to
    the

    crack

    cocaine

    guidelines.

    Cole

    argued

    that

    under

    the

    amended guidelines, his advisory range should be 262-327 months.


    Because the district court had granted a 40% reduction at the
    original sentencing hearing, Cole requested the same reduction
    to the new advisory range and sought a sentence of 156 months.
    The district court noted that Cole was eligible for a sentence
    reduction, but denied the motion.
    We

    review

    district

    We affirm.

    courts

    decision

    sentence reduction for abuse of discretion.


    must

    follow

    two-step

    approach

    when

    it

    on

    motion

    for

    A district court
    decides

    whether

    to

    modify an imprisonment term pursuant to a retroactive amendment


    to the sentencing guidelines.
    U.S. 817, 827 (2010).

    See Dillon v. United States, 560

    First, it must determine the prisoners

    eligibility for a sentence reduction.


    3

    Id.

    Second, the district

    court

    must

    determine

    consider
    whether,

    authorized...is

    any

    applicable

    in

    its

    warranted

    3553(a)

    discretion,

    in

    whole

    particular circumstances of the case.

    or

    in

    factors

    the
    part

    and

    reduction
    under

    the

    Id.

    Cole concedes that the district court fulfilled the first


    prong of the two-step Dillon approach when it noted that Cole
    was eligible for a sentence reduction.

    He argues, however, that

    the district court abused its discretion when it found, under


    the second prong of the Dillon analysis, that the reduction was
    unwarranted in Coles case.

    Cole contends that the district

    courts description of him shows that the district court did not
    fully consider the applicable 3553(a) factors.

    Specifically,

    Cole points to the district courts use of the present tense


    when

    it

    violent

    said,

    [Cole]

    criminal

    is

    history...a

    recidivist
    history

    essentially no work history. *

    of

    [with]

    deplorable,

    substance

    abuse...and

    (J.A. 32, emphasis added).

    Cole

    argues that by failing to acknowledge his efforts in prison to


    address

    those

    problems,

    the

    district

    court

    must

    have

    impermissibly failed to take them into account.

    We note the courts description is accurate. Any remedial


    measures taken in prison do not erase a violent criminal
    history or a history of substance abuse, nor do they
    significantly alter his work history. See J.A. 32.

    When

    we

    review

    reduction

    we

    presume

    decision

    that

    the

    on

    motion

    district

    for

    court

    sentence

    considered

    the

    applicable 3553(a) factors and other relevant matters absent


    a contrary indication.

    See United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d

    193, 195-96 (4th Cir. 2013).

    Here, the record not only fails to

    offer such a contrary indication, it confirms that the district


    court did in fact consider the 3553(a) factors.

    In its order,

    the district court clearly stated, [t]he court has reviewed the
    entire

    record.

    district

    court

    J.A.

    32.

    considered

    Further,
    all

    it

    factors,

    is

    clear

    that

    the

    including

    any

    new

    developments since the original sentencing, when it concluded,


    [t]he court remains convinced today, as it was on [the date of
    the original sentencing], that Cole received the sentence that
    was sufficient but not greater than necessary under 18 U.S.C.
    3553(a).

    Id. at 32-33 (emphasis added).

    In our view, the district court adequately considered the


    3553(a) factors when it denied Coles 3582(c) motion for a
    sentence reduction.

    We therefore affirm the district courts

    denial of Coles motion for a sentence reduction.


    AFFIRMED

    You might also like