United States of America v. Jason Dunlap

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_________________
No. 24-2773
_________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JASON DUNLAP,
Appellant
________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 2:17-cr-00305-001)
District Judge: Honorable Joshua D. Wolson
________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
June 17, 2025
Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, MONTGOMERY-REEVES, and McKEE, Circuit
Judges
(Opinion filed: August 28, 2025)
______________
OPINION∗
______________
McKEE, Circuit Judge.
∗ This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Jason Dunlap appeals the District Court’s denial of his motion to reduce his
sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).1 We review de novo whether a defendant is
eligible to receive a reduced sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2).2 But once eligibility has
been determined, we review a district court’s decision whether to grant or deny a motion
for reduction of sentence for abuse of discretion.3
The District Court denied Dunlap’s motion because it concluded that Dunlap was
not eligible to receive a reduced sentence, but even if he had been, a reduction was not
warranted based on the seriousness of the offense, as well as other factors. Regardless of
whether Dunlap was eligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2), the District
Court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that a reduction was not warranted.
We are aware of the rather tragic way Dunlap’s own drug addiction began, as well
his efforts at rehabilitation while incarcerated.4 However, the abuse of discretion
1 A district court may reduce a sentence:
in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment
based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the
Sentencing Commission . . . , after considering the factors set forth in section
3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is
consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing
Commission.
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
2 United States v. Ware, 694 F.3d 527, 531 (3d Cir. 2012).
3 Id.
4 While incarcerated, Dunlap received two years of counseling and completed two drug
rehabilitation classes, as well as several other prison programs. He read over 200 books
and volunteered as a GED instructor for multiple inmates. In addition, he worked as a
unit orderly, compound driver, environmental engineer, and spent hundreds of hours in
the food service preparing meals for other inmates.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
standard that governs our review of the District Court’s denial of Dunlap’s motion for
reduction of sentence is highly deferential.5 “A district court abuses its discretion when it
bases its decision upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an erroneous conclusion of
law, or an improper application of law to fact.”6 We cannot conclude that the District
Court abused its discretion by denying Dunlap’s motion to reduce his sentence.
Accordingly, we must affirm the District Court’s denial of Dunlap’s motion to
reduce his sentence.
5 United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 565 (3d Cir. 2009).
6 Cox v. Horn, 757 F.3d 113, 118 (3d Cir. 2014).

-- 3 of 3 --