Case ID: f-appx_169/html/0181-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Angel CASTORENA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-10996.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Feb. 22, 2006.
    Delonia Anita Watson, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jose Angel Castoreña, Federal Correctional Institution, El Reno, pro se.
    Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jose Angel Castoreña, federal prisoner # 23875-077, appeals the denial of his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He argues that he is entitled to a reduced sentence under Amendment 505 to the Sentencing Guidelines and the Supreme Court’s decisions in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738,160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

A district court exercises sound discretion in determining whether to grant a 18 U.S.C. § 3582(e)(2) motion, and we review its decision for abuse of discretion only. United States v. Gonzalez-Balderas, 105 F.3d 981, 982 (5th Cir.1997). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Castorena’s motion. This court’s previous opinion denying relief under § 3582(c)(2) with respect to Douglas’s Amendment 505 claim is the law of the case. See United States v. Becerra, 155 F.3d 740, 752 (5th Cir.1998). Castorena’s Blakely and Booker claims are not cognizable in the context of a 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion because neither case is based on a retroactive amendment to the Guidelines. See United States v. Shaw, 30 F.3d 26, 29 (5th Cir.1994).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.