USA v. Patrick Lomas, No. 09-30515 (5th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 09-30515 Document: 00511086511 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. 09-30515 Conference Calendar April 20, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. PATRICK D. LOMAS, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:97-CR-42-1 Before SMITH, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Patrick D. Lomas argues that the district court abused its discretion when it denied an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) reduction to his sentence because the district court failed to provide case-specific reasons based upon 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the policy statements of the Guidelines. He also argues that the district court improperly considered his post-incarceration conduct. The Government has moved for summary affirmance. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 09-30515 Document: 00511086511 Page: 2 No. 09-30515 Date Filed: 04/20/2010 Lomas s argument that the district court abused its discretion by failing to discuss the § 3553(a) factors and the Guidelines is unavailing. In United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 671-74 (5th Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed (Jan. 28, 2010) (No. 09-8939), this court emphasized that § 3582(c)(2) proceedings are not full resentencings, and a § 3582(c)(2) motion may be disposed of summarily, without case-specific reasons. Similarly, Lomas s argument that the district court improperly considered his post-incarceration conduct is unavailing, as this circuit has recently made clear that post-incarceration conduct may be considered in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings. See United States v. Smith, 595 F.3d 1322, 1323 (5th Cir. 2010); Evans, 587 F.3d at 673 n.10. Lomas s arguments thus fail to demonstrate that the district court s decision was an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 237 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 517 (2009). Accordingly, the Government s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is 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.
