USA v. Manuel Ramirez-Arellano, No. 16-50187 (5th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 16-50187 Document: 00513805844 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 16-50187 Summary Calendar FILED December 20, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. MANUEL RAMIREZ-ARELLANO, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:12-CR-1929-1 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Manuel Ramirez-Arellano, who is serving a 63-month prison sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy to import more than one kilogram of heroin, appeals the district court’s decision to deny his motion for a sentence modification under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Through that motion, he requested that the court reduce his sentence based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-50187 Document: 00513805844 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2016 No. 16-50187 Guidelines, which had the effect of retroactively lowering most drug-related base offense levels by two levels. Ramirez-Arellano has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion. See United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011). The court correctly recognized that he was eligible for a reduction; however, it denied the motion as a matter of discretion citing the nature and circumstances of the offense, i.e., the large quantity of heroin for which Ramirez-Arellano was held responsible, which is an appropriate factor to consider. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). In addition, the district court had before it RamirezArellano’s arguments in favor of a sentence reduction and gave due consideration to the § 3582(c)(2) motion. See United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995). 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.