USA v. Hugo Angel, No. 16-10477 (5th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-10477 Document: 00513866589 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/07/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 16-10477 Summary Calendar FILED February 7, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee v. HUGO ANGEL, Defendant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:06-CR-27-7 Before BARKSDALE, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Proceeding pro se, Hugo Angel appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his 235-month sentence, imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess, with intent to distribute, cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) and 846. Angel took part in an operation to transport cocaine from Mexico to the United States; used the proceeds to purchase more inventory; and was paid for Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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: 16-10477 Document: 00513866589 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/07/2017 No. 16-10477 transporting and delivering the drugs and their proceeds. During one deliverytrip, Angel and his conspirators were called to meet at a retail store, where they were met by narcotics officers. Angel was later arrested, and ultimately sentenced to the top of his advisory sentencing range under the Sentencing Guidelines, based in part on his extensive prior criminal history, including kidnapping three “juveniles and [transporting] them to Mexico where they were beaten and threatened regarding a missing load of marijuana”. Angel based his pro se motion for a sentence reduction on the retroactive provisions of Amendment 782 to the Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. §§ 1B1.10, 2D1.1(c); see also Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 825–26 (2010). The court recognized Angel was eligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2), but determined none was appropriate in the light of the applicable sentencing factors and his post-sentencing conduct. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The denial of a § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011). “A district court abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Id. (quoting United States v. Smith, 417 F.3d 483, 486–87 (5th Cir. 2005)). A court must complete the two-step inquiry applicable to § 3582(c)(2) motions by (1) determining defendant’s eligibility for a reduction, and (2) considering the § 3553(a) factors. See Henderson, 636 F.3d at 717–18; United States v. Larry, 632 F.3d 933, 936– 37 (5th Cir. 2011). Angel claimed, as support, for the reduction his completion of classes and employment as an orderly. The Government acknowledged Angel is eligible for reduction under the amended Guideline, but urged the court consider his past criminal history, as well as violations committed in prison, including: possession of a dangerous weapon; rioting; fighting with another inmate; and 2 Case: 16-10477 Document: 00513866589 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/07/2017 No. 16-10477 possession of an unauthorized item. The court denied the motion, “taking into account the policy statement set forth in [Guideline] §1B1.10 and the sentencing factors set forth in [§ 3553(a)]”. Angel contends the court’s order “just used a template with boiler plate language” and failed to consider Guideline §1B1.10 and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Angel, however, does not show the court relied on erroneous findings of fact or legal conclusions. See Henderson, 636 F.3d at 717. Nor does he show the court failed to consider the factors it was required to consider, particularly in the light of the court’s explicit statement to the contrary and the relevant evidence presented to it. See Larry, 632 F.3d at 936. Consequently, Angel fails to demonstrate the sentence-reduction denial was an abuse of discretion. See Henderson, 636 F.3d at 717; Larry, 632 F.3d at 936; United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672–74 (5th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 3
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.
