Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. DERRICK HOLDEN, also known as D-Lo, also known as Terrance T. Holden, Defendant-Appellant
Derrick Holden, federal prisoner # 14428-035, was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and was sentenced to 135 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. He appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to Sentencing Guidelines Amendments 782 and 788. He contends that the district court relied on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence when it found that he posed a continued threat to public safety and, therefore, abused its discretion in denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion.
Holden had prior convictions for drug possession, domestic abuse battery, burglary of a habitation, and simple assault. He participated in an attempted robbery of a drug stash house in the instant offense. He was resentenced for the instant offense after it was discovered that he had used his brother's name at the time of his arrest, prosecution, and original sentencing. At this resentencing, he received a significant downward departure from the original guidelines range on account of his substantial assistance to the Government. All his prison disciplinary violations, except for failing to stand count, occurred after he was resentenced. The district court's finding that Holden posed a continued threat to public safety was plausible in light of his criminal history and his prison disciplinary record and, therefore, the district court's determination that a sentence reduction was not warranted was not based on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence and was not an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
PER CURIAM:*
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 17-30101
Decided: October 20, 2017
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)