United States v. Daniel Collins, 712 F. App'x 392

In 2005 Collins pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possession of a firearm in relation to drug trafficking; he received 168 months consecutive to 60 months, plus five years supervised release.
In 2014 Collins moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (Amendment 782) for a sentence reduction; the Federal Public Defender was appointed and the probation office supported a reduction, the Government opposed.
The district court denied the § 3582(c)(2) reduction on Feb 26, 2016; Collins moved for reconsideration on Jan 20, 2017 and the district court denied that motion on Feb 7, 2017.
Collins filed a notice of appeal on Feb 15, 2017; the panel concluded the appeal from the original denial of the § 3582(c)(2) motion was untimely and dismissed it, but the appeal from the denial of reconsideration was timely and considered on the merits.
The district court had denied the reduction based on public-safety concerns tied to Collins’s association with weapons; Collins argued the court misbalanced § 3553(a) factors and pointed to his prison disciplinary record and rehabilitative efforts.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of reconsideration, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing public-safety concerns under § 3553(a).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of appeal from denial of § 3582(c)(2) motion	Collins implicitly argued procedural fairness; contested Government’s forfeiture claim on rehearing	Government: notice of appeal was filed more than 14 days late and timely objected on appeal	Appeal from denial of sentence-reduction dismissed as untimely under Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)
Timeliness and reviewability of motion for reconsideration	Collins: motion for reconsideration should be considered on merits despite being filed after 14 days; merits show district court misbalanced § 3553(a) factors	Government conceded court could consider the reconsideration denial (forfeiting untimeliness defense)	Reconsideration appeal was timely; district court had jurisdiction and denial affirmed — no abuse of discretion in weighing public-safety under § 3553(a)
Merits of denying § 3582(c)(2) reduction	Collins: no disciplinary reports, rehabilitated, firearm sentence already consecutive — not a danger to public safety	Government: public-safety concerns (association with weapons) justify denial under § 3553(a)	District court’s focus on public-safety and weapons association was a permissible § 3553(a) consideration; denial not an abuse of discretion

Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12 (2005) (government objection to untimely filing requires dismissal)
United States v. Martinez, 496 F.3d 387 (5th Cir. 2007) (Rule 4(b) time limit is mandatory but not jurisdictional)
United States v. Hernandez-Gomez, 795 F.3d 510 (5th Cir. 2015) (objecting in opening brief is timely to preserve untimeliness objection)
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (two-step § 3582(c)(2) framework: eligibility under § 1B1.10 then consideration of § 3553(a) factors)
United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007 (5th Cir. 1995) (appellate standard: disagreement over balancing § 3553(a) factors does not alone show abuse of discretion)
United States v. Rabhan, 540 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for motion for reconsideration is abuse of discretion)