USA v. Felipe Esparza-Cruz, No. 15-50423 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-50423 Document: 00513375625 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/11/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-50423 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 11, 2016 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. FELIPE ESPARZA-CRUZ, Defendant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:11-CR-520-1 Before BARKSDALE, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Felipe Esparza-Cruz, federal prisoner # 73034-280, was sentenced under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines to 87 months’ imprisonment, after pleading guilty in 2011 to conspiracy to possess marijuana, with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846, and possession of marijuana, with intent to distribute, in violation of § 841. Esparza challenges the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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: 15-50423 Document: 00513375625 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/11/2016 No. 15-50423 based on Amendment 782 to the Guidelines (retroactive application of lowered offense levels under the drug-trafficking guideline). See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. The district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the specific circumstances of the matter, and declined to exercise its discretion to reduce Esparza’s sentence. The denial of such relief is reviewed for abuse of discretion. E.g., United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). Sentencing “reductions under . . . § 3582(c)(2) are not mandatory . . . [and] merely give[ ] the district court discretion to reduce a sentence under limited circumstances”. United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 238 (5th Cir. 2009). If the court gave due consideration to the § 3582(c)(2) motion and the § 3553(a) factors, there is no abuse of discretion. See United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995). Esparza contends: the court gave excessive weight to the manner in which his crime was committed; failed to give adequate weight to mitigating factors; and erred in determining that a reduced sentence would not address the relevant sentencing objectives. He further asserts the court failed to take into account that denial of relief would result in unwarranted sentencing disparities among similarly situated defendants. The court gave due consideration to Esparza’s motion and, as reflected in its stated reasons for the denial, determined a reduction was not merited in the light of the § 3553 factors and the circumstances of the case. See id. The court noted, inter alia, “the fraudulent and sophisticated means that [Esparza] used to smuggle . . . marijuana into the country, by using a ‘cloned’ [Border Patrol] vehicle and wearing clothes similar to . . . a [Border Patrol] agent” were extraordinary, and increased the seriousness of his offense. Moreover, it found a sentence reduction would: diminish the seriousness of that offense; fail to 2 Case: 15-50423 Document: 00513375625 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/11/2016 No. 15-50423 provide sufficient punishment; and not protect the public from Esparza’s future crimes. See id. at 1009. Therefore, the court relied upon permissible factors in determining a reduction was not justified. Accordingly, Esparza has not shown the requisite abuse of discretion. AFFIRMED. 3
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.
