US v. Jerome Thomas, No. 13-7132 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7132 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JEROME THOMAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (2:93-cr-00196-2) Submitted: November 7, 2013 Decided: November 14, 2013 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin, II, United States William B. King, II, Assistant United States Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. D. Byrne, Virginia, Attorney, Attorney, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jerome Thomas appeals the district court s judgment order denying a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2012). We affirm. A district court may reduce a sentence in the case of a defendant whose guidelines sentencing range has been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. 193, 195 (4th Cir. 2013). within the court s United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d Whether to reduce the sentence is discretion so long as it considers the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) to the extent applicable. 195. the See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Smalls, 720 F.3d at The court is not required to reduce the sentence even if current sentence is above the amended guidelines range. United States v. Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 200 (4th Cir. 2010). review a district court s decision sentence for abuse of discretion. F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010). on whether to reduce We a United States v. Munn, 595 Under this standard, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the district court, but must determine whether the district court s exercise of discretion was arbitrary or capricious. United States v. Mason, 52 F.3d 1286, 1289 (4th Cir. 1995). The court did not abuse its discretion in considering the nature and the circumstances of the offense that resulted in Thomas being arrested. See, e.g., United States v. Osborn, 679 2 F.3d 1193, offense, 1196 (10th including the Cir. 2012) (the involvement of seriousness firearms on of the multiple occasions, was a proper basis for denying the § 3582(c) motion). [D]istrict determining factors. 2011). courts the have weight to extremely be given broad each discretion of the § when 3553(a) United States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669, 679 (4th Cir. Accordingly, the district court s determination that Thomas is still a danger to the public, based in part on the circumstances that led to Thomas arrest, is well within the court s discretion. We also conclude that the court acted well within its discretion when considering Thomas post-conviction conduct, and in concluding that such conduct calls into question his ability to respect the law and refrain from violence. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Thomas a sentence reduction, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3