US v. Carl Reynolds, No. 08-7058 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7058 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. CARL REYNOLDS, a/k/a Karl Reynolds, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (5:95-cr-00071-1) Submitted: December 31, 2008 Decided: January 27, 2009 Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl Reynolds, Appellant Pro Se. John Lanier File, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Carl Reynolds appeals from the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) appeal, (2006) Reynolds motion challenges court s opinion. for reduction several of aspects sentence. of the On district We affirm. Reynolds was eligible to benefit from recent amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines which reduced the base offense levels for offenses involving crack cocaine. first that the district court s sentencing He argues discretion lies within the newly calculated Guideline range and, therefore, the court was bound to resentence him within his lower Guideline range. We review the district court s denial of a motion under § 3582 for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004). if a defendant s sentencing range According to § 3582(c)(2), has been lowered by an amendment to the Guidelines, the court may reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering U.S.C. § 3553 (2006). the factors set forth in 18 Thus, Reynolds assertion is incorrect. The court recognized that Reynolds was eligible for a reduction, but found the § 3553(a) sentencing factors did not warrant such a decrease. Because the district court understood the parameters of its discretion, the court did not err in failing to give Reynolds a sentence within the lowered Guidelines range. 2 Next, deported upon determined sentence his that sentence, the to district a Reynolds. posed protect 18 court whether he longer a the not that, the must public because district danger court U.S.C. did argues release, district defendant. public, Reynolds to court society. consider from sentence its would We discretion protect will be incorrectly In the further § 3553(a)(2)(C). abuse he imposing need for the crimes of the that the find in the considering public from Future crimes by Reynolds could affect the American either indirectly or due to Reynolds reentry. United States v. Wills, 476 F.3d 103, 108 (2d Cir. 2007). See The district court was aware that Reynolds was being deported, and we conclude that it was not an abuse of discretion to determine that Reynolds still posed a risk to the public. Finally, Reynolds contends that he was not given the amended Presentence Report ( PSR ) to review. In general, a defendant is entitled to review any new evidence considered by the district court in a § 3582 proceeding. See United States v. Mueller, 168 F.3d 186, 189 (5th Cir. 1999). Any failure to disclose the addendum is reviewed for harmless error; that is, if the defendant can show that he was harmed by the denial of the opportunity to review an amended PSR, the district court s failure to disclose it is an abuse of discretion. Id. Here, Reynolds makes no attempt to show that he was harmed by any non3 disclosure. He does not assert that any of the facts laid out in the district court s opinion and relied upon in denying the motion (essentially, incorrect. his Moreover, prison the disciplinary amended PSR record) appears were to have recommended a sentence reduction, a suggestion that was rejected by the district court. Thus, Reynolds cannot show that disclosure would have aided him because (1) the negative aspects of the PSR are undisputed by aspects of the PSR rejected were Reynolds and by the (2) the positive district court. Accordingly, any failure by the district court to disclose the amended PSR was not an abuse of discretion. Thus, dispense we with oral affirm the argument district because court s the facts order. and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
