Sealed Appellee v. Sealed Appellant, No. 15-50447 (5th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on March 11, 2016.

Download PDF

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 15-50447 Summary Calendar FILED March 10, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk SEALED APPELLEE, Plaintiff-Appellee v. SEALED APPELLANT, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:11-CR-735 Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Defendant-Appellant (Appellant) appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion in which he sought a reduction of his 112month sentence for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review the denial of a motion for sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 669, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * No. 15-50447 Appellant argues that the district court gave excessive weight to his criminal history and failed to consider the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. The record shows that the district court gave due consideration to the § 3582(c)(2) motion as a whole and considered both the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including the continuous nature of Appellant’s criminal history and the danger that a reduced sentence would pose to the community. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(B)). The court was under no obligation to reduce his sentence, and Appellant has not demonstrated that the court abused its discretion. See Evans, 587 F.3d at 672-73 & n.11; see also United States v. Duhon, 541 F.3d 391, 397 (5th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the order of the district court is 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.