Sealed Appellee v. Sealed Appellant, No. 15-50548 (5th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on March 17, 2016.

Download PDF

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 15-50548 Summary Calendar FILED March 8, 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. 1:12-CR-254 Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Defendant-Appellant (Appellant) appeals from the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion seeking a reduction of his 40-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. Appellant sought a modification of his sentence based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Appellant argues that the district court erred in denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion because it gave excessive weight to his lengthy criminal history and did not adequately consider the other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors or his mitigating arguments. We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). The district court was not under any obligation to reduce Appellant’s sentence. See Evans, 587 F.3d at 673. In the instant case, the record shows that the district court gave due consideration to the § 3582(c) motion as a whole, listened to Appellant’s mitigating arguments, and considered the § 3553(a) factors, including Appellant’s criminal history and the danger he posed to the community; thus, there is no abuse of discretion. See Evans, 587 F.3d at 672-73 & n.11; United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1009-10 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED.

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.