United States of America v. Steven Shawn Marshall

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-7406
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEVEN SHAWN MARSHALL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Wilmington. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (7:11-cr-00002-D-1)
Submitted: January 18, 2018 Decided: January 23, 2018
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven Shawn Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United
States Attorney, Scott Andrew Lemmon, Timothy Severo, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM
Steven Shawn Marshall appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the
Sentencing Guidelines. Finding no error, we affirm.
A district court may reduce the sentence of a defendant who was sentenced to a
term of imprisonment based on a Sentencing Guidelines range subsequently lowered by
the Sentencing Commission. United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d 193, 195 (4th Cir. 2013).
“Whether to reduce a sentence and to what extent is a matter within the district court's
discretion.” Id. “We review a district court’s grant or denial of a [18 U.S.C.]
§ 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion.” Id. In determining whether to reduce a
defendant’s sentence, the court must consider the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012)
factors and whether a reduction would pose a danger to any person or the community,
and may also consider the defendant’s post-sentencing conduct. Id.; see U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10 p.s. cmt. 1(B)(i)-(iii) (2014).
“[A]bsent a contrary indication, we presume a district court deciding a
§ 3582(c)(2) motion has considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and other pertinent
matters before it.” Smalls, 720 F.3d at 195-96 (internal quotation marks omitted); United
States v. Legree, 205 F.3d 724, 728-29 (4th Cir. 2000). Contrary to Marshall’s assertion,
we conclude that, although the district court’s order denying the motion was relatively
brief, the court adequately considered the § 3553(a) factors, public safety, and Marshall’s
post-sentencing conduct. We discern no abuse of discretion in the court’s decision to
deny Marshall’s motion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --