USA v. Pedro Brown, No. 12-30914 (5th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-30914 Document: 00512199243 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 12-30914 Summary Calendar April 5, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. PEDRO WARDELL BROWN, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:96-CR-100-1 Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Pedro Wardell Brown, federal prisoner # 25032-034, appeals the denial of a motion to reconsider the denial of motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The Government has filed a brief on the merits and does not suggest that the denial of § 3582(c)(2) relief is not properly before us; thus, we address the merits of Brown s arguments. See United States v. Martinez, 496 F.3d 387, 388-89 (5th Cir. 2007). * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-30914 Document: 00512199243 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/05/2013 No. 12-30914 Brown argues that the denial of the motion has resulted in an aboveguidelines sentence, because he was initially sentenced within the Sentencing Guidelines, but his sentence is now above the revised Guidelines. He contends that the district court clearly erred by ignoring his lack of violent infractions in prison, his educational accomplishments, his close family ties, and the fact that his criminal history category over-represents the seriousness of his prior offenses. We review the district court s decision for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). The district court determined that Brown was eligible for a reduction in sentence based on Amendment 750 of the Sentencing Guidelines; however, the court concluded that a reduction was not appropriate in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, Brown s prior criminal history, his violent conduct during his arrest, the facts surrounding his conviction, and the fact that his sentence has already been reduced pursuant to a prior § 3582(c)(2) motion. See Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2691 (2010). Brown has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion. See Evans, 587 F.3d at 672. 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.
