USA v. Alex Mendoza-Cano, No. 13-11064 (5th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 13-11064 Document: 00512689582 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/08/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 13-11064 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 8, 2014 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. ALEX NOEL MENDOZA-CANO, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:10-CR-4-2 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Alex Noel Mendoza-Cano, federal prisoner # 39625-177, was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and was sentenced to serve 102 months in prison and a five-year term of supervised release. In this appeal, he challenges the district court s denial of the motion for reconsideration he filed with respect to his unsuccessful motion for modification of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B). As he did in the district court, Mendoza-Cano insists Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 13-11064 Document: 00512689582 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/08/2014 No. 13-11064 that he is entitled to relief because his guidelines calculations were flawed and because Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), provides for such relief. He is mistaken, and his arguments do not show that the district court abused its discretion in connection with its rejection of his motions. See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009) (§ 3582(c)(2)); Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 771 (5th Cir. 1997). Although Mendoza-Cano invoked § 3582(c)(1)(B), his claims do not fit within the confines of that subsection, nor do these claims fall under the strictures of the other subsections of § 3582(c). Consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying his § 3582(c) motion. See Evans, 587 F.3d at 672; see also United States v. Garcia, 606 F.3d 209, 212 n.5 (5th Cir. 2010). Because Alleyne does not affect this conclusion, the district court likewise did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion for reconsideration. See Martinez, 104 F.3d at 771. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
