USA v. Michael Derrow, No. 16-40053 (5th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-40053 Document: 00513860166 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/02/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-40053 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 2, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff–Appellee, versus MICHAEL JOSEPH DERROW, Defendant–Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 9:98-CR-6-9 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Michael Derrow, federal prisoner # 03199-286, appeals the denial of his 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-40053 Document: 00513860166 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/02/2017 No. 16-40053 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction of sentence. He claims that the district court abused its discretion because he was entitled to a reduction of his sentence under Amendments 591, 706, and 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. He also contends that the court failed to take notice of the commentary to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, and he challenges the reliability of the information in the Presentence Report. We review for abuse of discretion a decision whether to reduce a sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). Amendments 591 and 782 did not have the effect of lowering Derrow’s guideline range. Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, Derrow’s claim concerning Amendment 706 is barred from consideration because it was denied by the district court in a prior § 3582 motion and was rejected by this court on appeal. See United States v. Matthews, 312 F.3d 652, 657 (5th Cir. 2002). Further, there is no indication that the court failed to consider whether Derrow’s guideline range was altered by the amendments. Moreover, the sentencing court is not required to provide reasons for its denial of a § 3582 motion. See Evans, 587 F.3d at 674. Finally, Derrow’s theories regarding the validity of the original sentence are not cognizable in a § 3582(c)(2) motion. See United States v. Hernandez, 645 F.3d 709, 712 (5th Cir. 2011). The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826–27 (2010). Accordingly, the government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. The motion for partial summary dismissal is DENIED. The alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED. Derrow’s motion to file an out-of-time response is GRANTED. All other outstanding motions are DENIED. 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.
