United States v. Ronald Kennedy
690 F. App'x 238
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Ronald Vernon Kennedy, federal prisoner, sought a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782.
- The district court denied Kennedy's § 3582(c)(2) motion and certified the appeal was not taken in good faith.
- Kennedy moved in this Court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal and challenged the district court’s denial.
- Kennedy argued the district court abused its discretion by failing to adequately weigh and explain the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and by not considering his post‑sentencing rehabilitation under Pepper v. United States.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed whether the appeal raised nonfrivolous legal points and whether the district court properly considered § 3553(a) in denying the reduction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion denying § 3582(c)(2) reduction | District court failed to adequately weigh § 3553(a) factors and provide reasons | District court considered § 3553(a) and acted within discretion | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
| Whether district court had to state specific § 3553(a) factors | Kennedy: required explicit, detailed § 3553(a) analysis | Court: no requirement to expressly recite every § 3553(a) factor or provide expanded reasons | Not required; consideration shown by record |
| Whether Pepper requires consideration of post‑sentencing rehabilitation in § 3582(c)(2) motions | Kennedy: district court should apply Pepper’s rehabilitation analysis | Defendant: Pepper applies to resentencing after vacatur, not § 3582(c)(2) reductions | Pepper not applicable to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings |
| Whether appeal is taken in good faith for IFP purposes | Kennedy: appeal raises nonfrivolous issues | Government/district court: appeal lacks arguable merit | Appeal is frivolous; IFP denied and appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 1997) (standards for good‑faith certification and IFP on appeal)
- Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1983) (good‑faith inquiry focused on whether appeal presents arguable legal points)
- United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2009) (standard of review and § 3553(a) consideration on § 3582(c)(2) motions)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (district court must consider § 3553(a) before reducing sentence under § 3582(c)(2))
- United States v. Larry, 632 F.3d 933 (5th Cir. 2011) (no requirement to recite each § 3553(a) factor verbatim)
- United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713 (5th Cir. 2011) (frivolousness standard for appeals of § 3582(c)(2) denials)
- United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007 (5th Cir. 1995) (district court must give due consideration to motions as a whole)
- Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011) (post‑sentencing rehabilitation considered at resentencing after vacatur; not controlling for § 3582(c)(2) reductions)