USA v. Gary Alfaro, No. 16-10054 (5th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-10054 Document: 00514167009 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/22/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-10054 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 22, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. GARY EQUILUZ ALFARO, also known as Gordo, also known as G2, also known as G., Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:10-CR-42-3 Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Gary Equiluz Alfaro, federal prisoner # 43041-177, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. He contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion in a 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-10054 Document: 00514167009 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/22/2017 No. 16-10054 “Blanket Form Order” without meaningfully considering the relevant factors, specifically, his post-sentencing rehabilitative efforts. The district court correctly recognized that Alfaro was eligible for a sentence reduction. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010). However, the district court was under no obligation to grant him one. See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 673 (5th Cir. 2009). Alfaro’s arguments in favor of a sentence reduction, including his post-sentencing rehabilitative efforts, were set forth in his § 3582(c)(2) motion. His post-sentencing conduct, both positive and negative, was also addressed in the probation officer’s worksheet. In denying Alfaro’s § 3582(c)(2) motion, the district court noted that he had several disciplinary cases, the most recent one less than two months prior to the court’s order. Because the record shows that the district court gave due consideration to Alfaro’s § 3582(c)(2) motion, as well as the applicable policy statements and sentencing factors, Alfaro has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion. See United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717-18 (5th Cir. 2011); United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment 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.
