USA v. Nolley, No. 08-10943 (5th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 08-10943 Document: 00511494159 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/01/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 08-10943 Summary Calendar June 1, 2011 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. BRIAN NOLLEY, also known as B-Nolley, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:02-CR-174-15 Before JOLLY, GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Brian Nolley, federal prisoner # 29079-177, appeals from the grant of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence based upon Amendment 706 to the crack-cocaine sentencing guidelines; his sentence was lowered from 168 months to 160 months of imprisonment. Nolley argues that the decision to reduce his sentence by only eight months was an abuse of discretion because the district court focused solely on his post-conviction conduct and failed to address whether the extent of the reduction was consistent with Amendment 706 s goal * Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. Case: 08-10943 Document: 00511494159 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/01/2011 No. 08-10943 of alleviating the sentencing disparity between offenses involving crack and powder cocaine. Section 3582(c)(2) permits the discretionary modification of a defendant s sentence in certain cases where his guidelines range has been subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission. United States v. Cooley, 590 F.3d 293, 298 (5th Cir. 2009). In such cases, the sentencing court s decision whether to reduce a defendant s sentence is informed by the applicable § 3553(a) factors and the pertinent guideline policy statements. § 3582(c)(2). The court is required to consider the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that may result from a reduction in sentence and it may also consider the defendant s post-sentencing conduct occurring after imposition of the original term of imprisonment. United States v. Robinson, 542 F.3d 1045, 1052 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The district court has no obligation to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) and is not required to provide reasons or to explain its consideration of the § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 673-74 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3462 (2010). In this case, however, the district court stated that it had considered the § 3553(a) factors and Nolley s extensive postconviction prison disciplinary record in determining that an eight-month reduction in sentence was appropriate. No abuse of discretion occurred. AFFIRMED. 2
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.
