Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
June 2, 2015
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MAURICE CHARLES MAXWELL,
No. 15-6014
(D.C. No. 5:10-CR-00117-F-1)
(W.D. Oklahoma)
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
_________________________________
Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, MURPHY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
The parties do not request oral argument, and the Court has
determined that oral argument would not materially aid our consideration
of the appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). Thus, we
have decided the appeal based on the briefs.
Our order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except
under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
Standard of Review
In considering the district courts ruling, we apply the abuse-of-
discretion standard. See United States v Sharkey, 543 F.3d 1236, 1238
(10th Cir. 2008). Under this standard, we can reverse only if the district
court made a clear error of judgment or went beyond the bounds of
permissible choice. United States v. Dorrough, 84 F.3d 1309, 1311 (10th
Cir. 1996).
II.
The court acted within the bounds of its discretion given the existing
guidelines and comments.
Mr. Maxwell also criticizes the district court for considering the
infractions committed in prison. Appellants Opening Br. at 17-18. We
reject this criticism, for we have held that a district court can consider
prison infractions in determining whether to deny a 3582(c)(2) motion.
See United States v. Osborn, 679 F.3d 1193, 1196 (10th Cir. 2012)
(holding that prison disciplinary reports could justif y denial of a motion to
reduce the sentence under 3582(c)(2)).
IV.
Conclusion
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a sentence
Robert E. Bacharach
Circuit Judge