USA v. Arnulfo Davila, No. 16-10720 (5th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 16-10720 Document: 00514021994 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/06/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-10720 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 6, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ARNULFO DAVILA, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-194-1 Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Arnulfo Davila, federal prisoner # 32490-177, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion. He contends that the district court erred in failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors before denying his motion and in failing to consider the applicable guidelines range. The district court sentenced Davila to 300 months of imprisonment based on his binding agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-10720 Document: 00514021994 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/06/2017 No. 16-10720 11(c)(1)(C). Davila’s plea agreement did not call for him to be sentenced within a particular guidelines range, nor did it indicate that the basis for the specified term was a guidelines range applicable to his offense. See Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522, 534-40 (2011) (Sotomayor, J., concurring); United States v. Benitez, 822 F.3d 807, 809-12 (5th Cir. 2016). Additionally, the plea agreement did not explicitly employ a particular guidelines range to establish the term of imprisonment. See Benitez, 822 F.3d at 811. Thus, Davila was not eligible for a reduction because his sentence was not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” § 3582(c)(2); see Benitez, 822 F.3d at 811-12. The district court’s denial of a sentence reduction is, therefore, AFFIRMED. See Benitez, 822 F.3d at 809-12; Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010). 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.