2

1 15-2394 2 United States v. Mazza [3] 4 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 5 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT [6] 7 SUMMARY ORDER [8] 9 RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER 10 FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF 11 APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY 12 ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX 13 OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY 14 ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. [15] 16 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for 17 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 18 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 19 19th day of May, two thousand sixteen. [20] 21 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, 22 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 23 REENA RAGGI, 24 Circuit Judges. [25] 26 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 27 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 28 Appellee, [29] 30 -v.- 15-2394 [31] 32 CHEYNE MAZZA, 33 Defendant-Appellant. [34] 35 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X [36] 37 FOR APPELLANT: JAMES P. MAGUIRE, Assistant 38 Federal Public Defender, for 39 Terence S. Ward, Federal Defender, 40 New Haven, CT. [1] 1 FOR APPELLEE: MICHAEL E. RUNOWICZ (Marc H. 2 Silverman, on the brief), 3 Assistant United States Attorney, 4 for Deirdre M. Daly, United States 5 Attorney for the District of 6 Connecticut, New Haven, CT. [7] 8 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court 9 for the District of Connecticut (Bryant, J.). [10] 11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND 12 DECREED that the judgment of the district court be VACATED and 13 REMANDED. [14] 15 Cheyne Mazza appeals from the judgment of the United States 16 District Court for the District of Connecticut (Bryant, J.) 17 denying Mazza’s motion for a reduced sentence pursuant to 18 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2). We assume the parties’ familiarity with 19 the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues 20 presented for review. 21 Mazza was convicted of conspiracy to manufacture and 22 possess with intent to distribute over 1000 marijuana plants. 23 At sentencing, the district court calculated Mazza’s guidelines 24 range to be 135-168 months’ imprisonment. The district court 25 principally sentenced Mazza to 168 months’ imprisonment, and 26 we affirmed. United States v. Mazza, 503 F. App’x 9, 10 (2d 27 Cir. Nov. 15, 2012) (summary order). 28 Once Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing 29 Guidelines was made retroactive, the United States Probation 30 Office filed a presentence report addendum (the “Addendum”) 31 stating that Mazza qualified for a sentence reduction with an 32 amended guideline range of 108-135 months’ imprisonment. The 33 Addendum also described six disciplinary infractions that Mazza 34 had committed while serving his federal prison sentence: 35 possessing a hazardous tool, being in an unauthorized area, 36 assaulting without injury, and phone abuse (on three 37 occasions). 38 After the Addendum was filed, Mazza moved for a sentence 39 reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2). He did not dispute the [2] 1 six disciplinary infractions outlined in the Addendum, but 2 argued that the district court should nonetheless exercise its 3 discretion to reduce his sentence from 168 months to 108 months. 4 The government acknowledged Mazza’s eligibility, but opposed 5 the motion principally on the ground of Mazza’s post-conviction 6 conduct in prison. The district court denied the motion based 7 on an application of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) factors and 8 observed that “[t]he defendant’s behavior in prison 9 demonstrates a continued need to protect the public and a lack 10 of respect for the law.” S.A. 152. Mazza appealed. 11 1. When considering a motion for a sentence reduction 12 under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2), a district court must first 13 determine whether the defendant is eligible for a reduction. 14 United States v. Christie, 736 F.3d 191, 194 (2d Cir. 2013). 15 If so, the district court may exercise discretion to reduce the 16 original sentence, but only after considering the applicable [17] 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) factors, id., and “the post-sentencing 18 behavior of the defendant and any public safety concerns a 19 reduction in sentence would raise,” United States v. Rivera, [20] 662 F.3d 166, 170 (2d Cir. 2011). A § 3582(c)(2) motion does 21 not entail a plenary resentencing; § 3582(c)(2) only authorizes 22 a limited modification of the original sentence. Dillon v. 23 United States, 560 U.S. 817, 825-27 (2010). Once a district 24 court has made its decision on a § 3582(c)(2) motion, it must 25 include “at least some minimal statement of reasons for [its] 26 action” so that we can provide meaningful appellate review. 27 Christie, 736 F.3d at 197 . We review for abuse of discretion 28 a district court’s decision on a motion for a sentence reduction 29 pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Borden, 564 F.3d 30 100, 104 (2d Cir. 2009). 31 Because Mazza was eligible for a reduced sentence, the only 32 issue is whether the district court abused its discretion in 33 denying the § 3582(c)(2) motion and maintaining the sentence 34 of 168 months’ imprisonment. True, a defendant’s 35 post-sentencing behavior can be a proper and sufficient basis 36 on which to deny a sentence reduction. See, e.g., United States 37 v. Wilson, 716 F.3d 50, 53 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam); United 38 States v. Figueroa, 714 F.3d 757, 761 (2d Cir. 2013) (per 39 curiam). Here, however, the record is not sufficiently 40 developed for us to engage in a meaningful appellate review of [3] 1 whether Mazza’s post-sentencing conduct could support the 2 district court’s decision. Accordingly, we vacate solely on 3 the ground that the record was insufficiently developed, and 4 remand for additional fact finding with respect to the nature 5 and potential seriousness of Mazza’s disciplinary infractions 6 in prison. 7 Accordingly, and finding no merit in Mazza’s other 8 arguments, we hereby VACATE and REMAND the judgment of the 9 district court. 10 FOR THE COURT: 11 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK