United States v. Self ( 2021 )

Case: 21-50019 Document: 00516001768 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/02/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 21-50019 September 2, 2021
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Eugene Durst Self,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:09-CR-66-1
Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Eugene Durst Self, federal prisoner # 76522-080, was sentenced to
concurrent terms of imprisonment of 60 and 36 months, and concurrent five-
year terms of supervised release, upon revocation of his supervised release.
Self was originally convicted and sentenced before 2010 of conspiracy to
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-50019 Document: 00516001768 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/02/2021
No. 21-50019
possess with the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base, and
possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(iii), and (b)(1)(C).
Now Self appeals the denial of his motion to reduce his revocation
sentence under the First Step Act. He argues that the district court abused
its discretion in denying his motion, and that the district court erroneously
denied his motion because his sentence was imposed after revocation of his
supervised release.
Contrary to Self’s contention, the district court considered the merits
of his motion, and there is no indication that the district court determined
that he was not eligible based on an erroneous legal interpretation of the Act.
The district court considered the applicable factors provided in § 404 of the
Act, the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and the applicable policy
statements issued by the Sentencing Commission, and determined on the
merits that a sentencing reduction was not warranted. Self has not shown
that the district court committed an error of law or based its decision on a
clearly erroneous view of the evidence. See United States v. Batiste, 980 F.3d
466, 469 (5th Cir. 2020). Self has not demonstrated that the district court
abused its discretion in denying his motion for a sentence reduction under
the Act. See United States v. Jackson, 945 F.3d 315, 319 (5th Cir. 2019), cert.
denied, 140 S. Ct. 2699 (2020). The district court’s denial of his motion is
AFFIRMED.
2