USA V. ANTONIO HERRERA REYES, No. 15-50169 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 20 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 15-50169 D.C. No. 3:10-cr-05057-DMS v. MEMORANDUM* ANTONIO HERRERA REYES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 14, 2016** Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Antonio Herrera Reyes appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013), and we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Herrera Reyes contends that the district court abused its discretion by failing to calculate the amended Guidelines range and by declining to reduce his sentence. The record reflects that the court determined that it had discretion to reduce Herrera Reyes’s sentence because he was sentenced based on a Guidelines range that was subsequently lowered. The court then considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and based on those factors, declined to exercise its discretion to lower Herrera Reyes’s sentence. Contrary to Herrera Reyes’s contention, the court satisfied its procedural obligations. See United States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010). Moreover, in light of the nature of Herrera Reyes’s offense and his criminal history, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Herrera Reyes’s motion. See id. AFFIRMED. 2 15-50169
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.
