Case ID: f-appx_638/html/0390-01.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

SEALED APPELLEE, Plaintiff-Appellee v. SEALED APPELLANT, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50447
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 10, 2016.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Maureen Scott Franco, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Juan Antonio Torres, White Deer, PA, pro se.
    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 112-month 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 667, 672 (5th Cir.2009).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.