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. Milton Eugene ROBINS, Defendant-Appellant
Previously, this court determined that Milton Eugene Robins 1 was eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Robins, 703 F. App'x 271, 272-74 (5th Cir. 2017). We remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings. Id. at 274. On remand, the district court granted the motion for a sentence reduction and reduced the sentence of imprisonment to 389 months.
Although Robins initially expressed his gratitude for the district court's grant of relief, he subsequently filed a motion styled Nunc Pro Tunc Motion for Error Correction, asserting that the original sentence and the adjusted sentence were not comparable because the original sentence was within the original guidelines range of 360 months to life and the adjusted sentence varied upward from the adjusted guidelines range of 292-365 months. A comparable sentence, he contended, would have been within the adjusted guidelines range. The motion was denied, and Robins's motion for reconsideration was also denied. Robins has appealed both orders.
We have construed Robins's Nunc Pro Tunc Motion for Error Correction as a successive motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Calton, 900 F.3d 706, 710-11 (5th Cir. 2018). The district court was not obligated to reduce Robins's sentence at all and was therefore “under no obligation to reduce it even further within the recalculated range.” United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 673 (5th Cir. 2009). The record shows that the district court gave due consideration to the motion as a whole and considered the statutory sentencing factors; thus, there is no abuse of discretion. See United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court's orders are AFFIRMED.
FOOTNOTES
1. Federal prisoner # 02993-078.
PER CURIAM: * FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
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. 18-11009
Decided: March 28, 2019
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)