USA v. Jesus Aguilar-Sanchez, No. 15-50414 (5th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 15-50414 Document: 00513486780 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/29/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-50414 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 29, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff–Appellee, versus JESUS AGUILAR-SANCHEZ, Also Known as Jesus Aguilar Sanchez, Defendant–Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas No. 2:11-CR-147-1 Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jesus Aguilar-Sanchez, federal prisoner # 70345-280, appeals the denial 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-50414 Document: 00513486780 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/29/2016 No. 15-50414 of a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court originally sentenced him to 90 months—within the guideline range of 87 to 108 months—for possessing with intent to distribute cocaine. The court went below the 10-year statutory minimum in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) even though the offense involved more than five kilograms of cocaine because AguilarSanchez met the conditions for the safety valve in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). Later, the Sentencing Commission retroactively lowered the guideline range to 70 to 87 months, see U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 782, and the parties moved the court to reduce the sentence to 72 months under § 3582(c)(2). The district court acknowledged Aguilar-Sanchez’s eligibility for a reduction but denied it. We review that decision for abuse of discretion. United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011). Aguilar-Sanchez claims that the court gave improper weight to the unusually high purity of the cocaine, which the court noted can be a basis for an upward departure. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. (n.27(C)). The court was not upwardly departing here but, instead, was only considering the relevant factors. See § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A), (5)(A); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(B)), p.s.; see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.7. Aguilar-Sanchez also urges that the court should not have treated the prior safety-valve reduction under U.S.S.G. §§ 2D1.1(b)(16) and 5C1.2 and § 3553(f) as weighing against a reduction in the sentence, but the court properly took into account the context of the original sentence when it decided against a reduction. See, e.g., United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 673 & n.11 (5th Cir. 2009); see also § 3553(a)(2)(A). AguilarSanchez’s contention that the court failed to accord adequate weight to the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, see § 3553(a)(6), is also unavailing. See United States v. Smith, 595 F.3d 1322, 1323 (5th Cir. 2010). 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.