Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Reinaldo Lozano, A/K/A Ray, 865 F.2d 1260, 4th Cir. (1988)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    Reinaldo Lozano appealed the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence for several drug offenses. He argued his sentence was more severe than his co-defendants. The court affirmed the denial, finding that disparity between co-defendants' sentences alone does not constitute abuse of discretion. The court also found Lozano's sentence was within statutory limits and he provided no evidence the disparity was due to unconstitutional motives by the trial court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1988-11-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 865 F.2d 1260 Docket: 88-7666

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Reinaldo Lozano appealed the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence for several drug offenses. He argued his sentence was more severe than his co-defendants. The court affirmed the denial, finding that disparity between co-defendants' sentences alone does not constitute abuse of discretion. The court also found Lozano's sentence was within statutory limits and he provided no evidence the disparity was due to unconstitutional motives by the trial court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    6 views2 pages

    United States v. Reinaldo Lozano, A/K/A Ray, 865 F.2d 1260, 4th Cir. (1988)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Reinaldo Lozano appealed the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence for several drug offenses. He argued his sentence was more severe than his co-defendants. The court affirmed the denial, finding that disparity between co-defendants' sentences alone does not constitute abuse of discretion. The court also found Lozano's sentence was within statutory limits and he provided no evidence the disparity was due to unconstitutional motives by the trial court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    865 F.

    2d 1260
    Unpublished Disposition

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of


    unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    Reinaldo LOZANO, a/k/a Ray, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 88-7666.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted: Sept. 29, 1988.
    Decided: Nov. 28, 1988.

    Reinaldo Lozano, appellant pro se.


    Robert Edward Bradenham, II, (Office of the United States Attorney), for
    appellee.
    Before WIDENER, K.K. HALL and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    Reinaldo Lozano, a federal inmate, appeals from the district court's denial of
    his motion for a reduction of sentence made pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b).
    Lozano contends that his sentence should be reduced because the sentence he
    received as a result of a number of drug-related offenses was more severe than
    the sentences received by his co-defendants.

    A motion for reduction of sentence is addressed to the sound discretion of the


    district court; its judgment will not be distrubed absent a clear abuse of that
    discretion. United States v. Stumpf, 476 F.2d 945 (4th Cir.1973). Regarding
    Lozano's grounds for this motion, "a mere showing of disparity of sentences
    among co-defendants does not constitute an abuse of discretion." United States

    v. Herrera, 757 F.2d 144, 150 (7th Cir.1985). Since Lozano's sentence is within
    statutory limits, he must show the disparity is the result of some
    "constitutionally impermissible motivation on the part of the trial court."
    United States v. Alfonso, 738 F.2d 369, 373 (10th Cir.1984). Lozano has made
    no such showing.
    3

    In short, our examination of the record indicates that the district court did not
    abuse its discretion in denying the motion in this case. Accordingly, we affirm
    the district court's denial of relief under Rule 35(b). We dispense with oral
    argument because the dispositive issues recently have been decided
    authoritatively.

    AFFIRMED.

    You might also like