USA v. Patrick Franklin, No. 09-30239 (5th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 09-30239 Document: 00511086579 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 09-30239 Conference Calendar April 20, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. PATRICK FRANKLIN, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:96-CR-17-3 Before SMITH, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Patrick Franklin, federal prisoner # 02736-095, appeals the district court s grant of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence based on the amendments to the crack cocaine Guideline. Franklin argues that the limited reduction of only 12 months was an abuse of discretion. He also argues that the district court failed to indicate that it had considered the applicable sentencing factors. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 09-30239 Document: 00511086579 Page: 2 No. 09-30239 Date Filed: 04/20/2010 We review a district court s decision to reduce a sentence for an abuse of discretion, and its interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines is reviewed de novo. United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 237 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 517 (2009). Franklin s contentions are foreclosed by United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed (Jan. 28, 2010) (No. 09-8939). As we stated in Evans, a district court is under no obligation to reduce the sentence at all or to reduce it even further within the recalculated range. Id. at 673. To the extent that Franklin is asserting that the district court did not sufficiently explain its reasons for the reduced sentence, Evans also forecloses such an argument. See id. at 674. 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.