United States v. Jeffrey Brevick
669 F. App'x 266
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Jeffrey Alan Brevick, pro se, seeks a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on the retroactive application of U.S.S.G. Amendment 782 (lowering certain drug-offense levels from 34 to 32).
- Brevick was sentenced to 262 months after conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute over 50 grams of pure methamphetamine.
- The district court considered Brevick’s § 3582(c)(2) motion, referenced the drug quantities attributed to him and stated it had considered “all other factors” under Amendment 782 and § 3553(a), and denied a sentence reduction as not warranted.
- Brevick raised multiple arguments on appeal: insufficient explanation for denial, challenge to drug-weight findings from original sentencing, failure to provide a new PSR/eligibility worksheet, inadequate consideration of post-sentencing rehabilitation and § 3553(a) factors, and alleged unwarranted sentencing disparities.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion (legal issues de novo; factual findings for clear error) and affirmed the district court’s denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of district court’s explanation for denying § 3582(c)(2) relief | Brevick: court failed to adequately explain denial | Government: record shows court considered drug quantities and all § 3553(a) factors implicitly or explicitly | Affirmed — no abuse; record shows consideration and explicit statement that reduction not warranted |
| Ability to relitigate original drug-weight findings via § 3582(c)(2) motion | Brevick: court should have fully explained drug-weight findings at original sentencing | Government: § 3582(c)(2) not a vehicle to relitigate sentencing facts | Affirmed — untimely; cannot relitigate drug-weight attribution in § 3582(c)(2) motion |
| Failure to provide new PSR or probation eligibility worksheet | Brevick: district court should have given him a copy of the new PSR/worksheet | Government: any omission is harmless given denial on § 3553(a) grounds | Affirmed — omission harmless in light of substantive denial |
| Consideration of post-sentencing rehabilitation, § 3553(a) factors, and disparities | Brevick: court ignored rehab evidence, failed to apply § 3553(a), and created disparities by denying relief others received | Government: court considered rehabilitation and § 3553(a); not required to detail reasoning; disparity claim insufficient | Affirmed — court considered rehabilitative evidence and § 3553(a); differing outcomes do not establish an unwarranted disparity |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Benitez, 822 F.3d 807 (5th Cir. 2016) (discussing Amendment 782 offense-level changes)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (standards for sentence reductions under § 3582(c)(2))
- United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2009) (district court’s discretion in reducing sentences under § 3582(c)(2))
- United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713 (5th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for § 3582(c)(2) decisions)
- United States v. Larry, 632 F.3d 933 (5th Cir. 2011) (abuse of discretion when required factors not considered)
- United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007 (5th Cir. 1995) (sufficiency of record showing consideration of § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Hernandez, 645 F.3d 709 (5th Cir. 2011) (§ 3582(c)(2) cannot be used to relitigate sentencing drug-quantity findings)
- United States v. Smith, 595 F.3d 1322 (5th Cir. 2010) (denial of § 3582(c)(2) relief does not by itself show unwarranted sentencing disparities)