USA v. Eliseo Montes, Jr., No. 16-51053 (5th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-51053 Document: 00514587159 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/06/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-51053 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 6, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ELISEO MONTES, JR., Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:15-CV-80 Before KING, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * A jury found Eliseo Montes, Jr., federal prisoner # 04079-380, guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least 1,000 kilograms of marijuana (Count One) and conspiracy to launder money (Count Two). The district court sentenced Montes to 240 months of imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently. He challenges the denial of a sentence reduction 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-51053 Document: 00514587159 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/06/2018 No. 16-51053 under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), pursuant to Amendment 782 to Sentencing Guideline § 2D1.1. In determining whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2), the district court must first determine whether the defendant is eligible for a sentence modification and the extent of the reduction authorized. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010). If the court determines that a defendant is eligible for a sentence modification, it must then consider any applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors to decide whether, in its discretion, the authorized reduction is warranted in whole or in part. Id. at 827. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s decision not to reduce a sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011). Here, the district court implicitly determined that Montes was eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782. The district court’s stated reasons for denying the motion, namely that a sentence reduction would not adequately reflect Montes’s culpability and the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, or afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, considering the amount of drugs involved, were within the court’s discretion. See § 3553(a)(1); Dillon, 530 U.S. at 827; see also United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 673 & n.9 (5th Cir. 2009). 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.
