United States of America v. Danny Aument

DLD-157 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 24-1329
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DANNY AUMENT,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
(D.C. Criminal Action No. 1-23-cr-00006-001)
District Judge: Honorable Gregory B. Williams
____________________________________
Submitted on Appellee’s Motion for Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
July 25, 2024
Before: JORDAN, PORTER, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: August 8, 2024)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
* 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
Pro se Appellant Danny Aument pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a
machinegun and possession of a silencer. Aument was sentenced in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware to 30 months on each count, to be served concurrently
and to be followed by three years of supervised release for each count, again to be served
concurrently. On January 24, 2024, he filed a motion for sentence reduction under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and citing Amendment 821, Part (B) of the U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines. The District Court denied the motion, stating that Aument was not eligible
for a sentencing reduction because the offense involved the possession of firearms, which
constituted an “aggravating factor” under U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a)(7). Aument timely filed
the instant appeal. The government moved to summarily affirm.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a district court’s
decision to grant or deny a motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to § 3582(c) for
abuse of discretion. See United States v. Mateo, 560 F.3d 152, 154 (3d Cir. 2009). We
may summarily affirm the District Court’s order if we conclude that Aument has not
presented a substantial question. See 3d Cir. LAR 27. 4 and IOP 10.6.
After considering the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), a district
court can reduce a defendant’s sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) if the defendant “has
been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has
subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission” and “such a reduction is
consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.”

-- 2 of 3 --

3
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). This statute “does not authorize a resentencing,” and only
“permits a sentence reduction within the narrow bounds established by the [U.S.
Sentencing] Commission.” Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 831 (2010).
Amendment 821, Part (B) of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines discusses a two-level
reduction available for “Zero-Point Offenders” that meet certain criteria enumerated in
U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1. One of the criteria for the reduction is that the defendant “did not
possess, receive, purchase, transport, transfer, sell, or otherwise dispose of a firearm or
other dangerous weapon . . . in connection with the offense.” U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a)(7).
The District Court correctly concluded that because Aument was convicted for
possessing a firearm, he was not eligible for the sentence reduction, as per the relevant
criteria listed in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Aument does not challenge this
rationale in his response to the government’s motion to summarily affirm, and instead
presents an argument regarding the timing of his conviction in relation to the date that
Amendment 821 went into effect. Accordingly, we conclude that Aument has not
presented a substantial question. We therefore grant the government’s motion and will
summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court.

-- 3 of 3 --