USA v. Pedro Lopez-Maya, No. 16-10132 (5th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-10132 Document: 00513822221 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/05/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-10132 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fif h Circuit FILED January 5, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. PEDRO LOPEZ-MAYA, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13-CR-200-2 Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and CLEMENT and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Pedro Lopez-Maya, federal prisoner # 47110-177, appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion wherein he requested a reduction in his 135month sentence in light of Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. He argues that, because he qualified for a reduction based on that amendment and in light of his post-sentencing rehabilitation, the district court abused its 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-10132 Document: 00513822221 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/05/2017 No. 16-10132 discretion by failing to grant the motion and reduce his sentence to the low end of the amended guidelines range. Section 3582(c)(2) permits the discretionary modification of a defendant’s sentence in certain cases in which the guidelines range has been subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission. United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 237 (5th Cir. 2009). The district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, while the court’s interpretation of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo. United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). A defendant is eligible for a reduction only if the amendment lowers the defendant’s applicable guidelines range. § 3582(c)(2). Because the district court considered the amended guidelines range under Amendment 782 at Lopez-Maya’s initial sentencing, it did not abuse its discretion by denying him a further reduction under § 3582(c)(2). See Evans, 587 F.3d at 673. 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.
