USA v. Hector De Hoyos, No. 15-50773 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on April 1, 2016.
Download PDF
Case: 15-50773 Document: 00513726055 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/19/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 15-50773 Summary Calendar FILED October 19, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. HECTOR DE HOYOS, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:12-CR-1709-1 Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Hector De Hoyos appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion, as well as his related motion for reconsideration, in which he sought a reduction of his 120-month sentence for conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute less than 50 kilograms of marijuana. De Hoyos argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying him a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 782 of the Sentencing Guidelines, which 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-50773 Document: 00513726055 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2016 No. 15-50773 effectively lowered most drug-related base offense levels. De Hoyos contends that the district court gave excessive weight to his criminal history and failed to adequately consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, including the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, and De Hoyos’s postsentencing conduct. 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 record establishes that the district court considered the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, as well as De Hoyos’s postsentencing conduct, in evaluating whether a sentence reduction was warranted. See United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1009-10 (5th Cir. 1995); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(B)(iii)). De Hoyos has not shown that the district court abused its discretion by denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion based on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence. See United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717-18 (5th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment 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.
