United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
ORDER AND REASONS
L. C. FELDMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is Michael Dillon's motion to reduce sentence.
For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.
Michael Dillon pled guilty to two drug offenses and
acknowledged having a prior felony drug conviction, he was
sentenced to serve concurrent terms of 300 months'
imprisonment on each count.
moved to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2). The Court's screening committee determined
that Amendment 782 had reduced Dillon's applicable
guideline range, and that Dillon was eligible for
consideration of a sentencing reduction. Judge Engelhardt
denied Dillon's request for a sentence reduction, finding
that “the sentence imposed was fair and
reasonable.” Finding no abuse of discretion, the Fifth
The record reflects that the district court implicitly
determined that Dillon was eligible for a sentence reduction.
The record also reflects that the district court considered
the materials that had been presented to it, including
Dillon's arguments that a sentence reduction was
warranted in light of the applicable § 3553(a)
sentencing factors and his positive record of post-conviction
The district court correctly conducted the applicable
two-step inquiry. Dillon's disagreement with the
court's denial of his motion fails to demonstrate an
abuse of discretion.
United States v. Dillon, Fed.Appx. 292, 292 (5th
second time, Dillon now seeks a reduction in his sentence
under Amendment 782 and § 3582(c)(2).
of the case doctrine “applies to a single proceeding,
and operates to foreclose re-examination of decided issues
either on remand or on a subsequent appeal.” United
States v. Calton, 900 F.3d 706, 714 (5th Cir.
2018)(citation and quotation marks omitted). This
discretionary doctrine “is essential to the orderly
administration of justice.” United States v.
Matthews, 312 F.3d 652, 657 (5th Cir. 2002).
“Without this doctrine, cases would end only when
obstinate litigants tire of re-asserting the same arguments
over and over again[, ] in the hopes of obtaining a more
sympathetic panel[.]” Id. (citation omitted).
Consistent with its discretionary nature, there are three
exceptions to its application: “(1) The evidence at a
subsequent trial is substantially different; (2) there has
been an intervening change of law by a controlling authority;
and (3) the earlier decision is clearly erroneous and would
work a manifest injustice.” Id. (citation
seeks the same relief he previously sought; relief that was
denied. He continues to disagree with the disposition of his
prior motion, insisting that he is eligible for a sentence
reduction. But his eligibility for a sentencing
reduction has not been disputed. Dillon, 707
Fed.Appx. at 292 (noting that the district court had already
“implicitly determined” that Dillon was eligible
for a sentence reduction). The government submits that
Dillon's claim concerning Amendment 782 should not be
considered because the district court already denied such
relief and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The Court agrees.
the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a
sentence reduction is the law of this case. See Id.
Dillon's motion seeking discretionary relief has
previously been resolved against him; that result was
affirmed on appeal. And, none of the exceptions to the
discretionary law of the case doctrine ...