USA v. Chantry Ortiz, No. 16-10552 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-10552 Document: 00513813330 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/27/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fif h Circuit No. 16-10552 Summary Calendar FILED December 27, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. CHANTRY CLAY ORTIZ, also known as “Guero,”, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:10-CR-18-1 Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge: * Chantry Clay Ortiz, federal prisoner # 38006-177, was sentenced to 188 months of imprisonment after pleading guilty to distributing and possessing with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Ortiz moved for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on an amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines that lowered the offense levels for most drug-related offenses. The district court denied relief, and Ortiz appeals. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-10552 Document: 00513813330 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/27/2016 No. 16-10552 Section 3582(c)(2) permits courts to modify, in their discretion, a defendant's sentence when the Sentencing Commission has subsequently lowered the applicable sentencing range. The district court may reduce a sentence after considering the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and applicable guideline policy statements. § 3582(c)(2). The denial of a sentence reduction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). A review of the record reveals that, when denying Ortiz’s § 3582(c)(2) motion, the district court properly considered the § 3553(a) factors, guideline policy statement, Ortiz’s post-sentencing rehabilitative efforts, and Ortiz’s prison disciplinary record. See id. at 672-73; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10; § 3582(c)(2). Ortiz has not shown that the district court abused its discretion by denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion. See Evans, 587 F.3d at 672-73. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment. 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.
