United States v. Jason Bassa
673 F. App'x 452
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jason Gabriel Bassa, a federal prisoner, moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines.
- The district court found Bassa eligible for a guideline-based reduction but denied relief in the exercise of its discretion, citing his extensive criminal history, offense seriousness, and need to protect the public under § 3553(a).
- Bassa also appealed a district-court order that excused his untimely notice of appeal as caused by excusable neglect; the district court had allowed the late filing.
- Bassa argued the district court overstated his criminal history, overlooked his rehabilitation, improperly relied on public-danger concerns, and ignored the policy behind Amendment 782.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed the § 3582(c)(2) denial for abuse of discretion and considered whether the appeal was taken in good faith for purposes of in forma pauperis (IFP) status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a § 3582(c)(2) reduction | Bassa: court overstated criminal history, ignored rehabilitation, and wrongly relied on public-danger to deny reduction; inconsistent with Amendment 782 policy | Government: district court permissibly weighed § 3553(a) factors and declined to reduce sentence despite eligibility | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed (court permissibly considered criminal history, offense seriousness, and public-protection) |
| Whether the order excusing untimely notice of appeal is appealable | Bassa: appealed the order granting relief for excusable neglect | Government: order granted the relief Bassa sought; no basis to appeal | Appeal of that order has no merit because district court already granted the relief |
| Whether the appeal was taken in good faith for IFP purposes | Bassa: seeks IFP, challenging district court's certification of frivolous appeal | Government: appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue | Appeal is frivolous; IFP denied and appeal dismissed |
| Whether eligibility under § 3582(c)(2) required a sentence reduction | Bassa: contends policy of Amendment 782 entitles him to reduction | Government: eligibility does not mandate relief; district court has discretion | Eligibility acknowledged but reduction discretionary; court properly denied relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 1997) (standard for good‑faith IFP appeals and frivolity)
- United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713 (5th Cir. 2011) (abuse‑of‑discretion review and § 3553(a) reassessment for § 3582(c)(2) reductions)
- United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235 (5th Cir. 2009) (district court discretion to modify sentence under § 3582(c)(2))
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (courts must consider § 3553(a) factors when reducing sentences under § 3582(c)(2))
- United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2009) (eligibility for reduction does not entitle defendant to one)
- Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1983) (good‑faith standard for appeals)