Case ID: f-appx_672/html/0467-01.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. Pedro LOPEZ-MAYA, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-10132 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed January 5, 2017
    Pedro Lopez-Maya, Pro Se
    Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and CLEMENT and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Pedro Lopez-Maya, federal prisoner # 47110-177, appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion wherein he requested a reduction in his 135-month sentence in light of Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. He argues that, because he qualified for a reduction based on that amendment and in light of his post-sentencing rehabilitation, the district court' abused its discretion by failing to grant the motion and reduce his sentence to the low end of the amended guidelines range.

Section 3582(c)(2) permits the discretionary modification of a defendant’s sentence in certain eases in which the guidelines range has been subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission. United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235, 237 (5th Cir. 2009). The district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, while the court’s interpretation of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo. United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009).

A defendant is eligible for a reduction only if the amendment lowers the defendant’s applicable guidelines range. § 3582(c)(2). Because the district court considered the amended guidelines range under Amendment 782 at Lopez-Maya’s initial sentencing, it did not abuse its discretion by denying him a further reduction under § 3582(c)(2). See Evans, 587 F.3d at 673.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.