Case ID: f-appx_653/html/0304-01.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. David FERNANDEZ, also known as Ears, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 15-10847
    Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Date Filed: 06/24/2016
    Gail A. Hayworth, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    David Fernandez, Oakdale, LA, Pro Se.
    Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

David Fernandez, federal prisoner # 32964-177, appeals from the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion seeking a reduction of his 188-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute less than 50 grams of cocaine base. That sentence is the result of a previous reduction from the original 235-month sentence as the result of a retroae-tive amendment that lowered the Guideline for crack offense. Fernandez now seeks a modification of his sentence based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which lowered most offense levels for any drug offenses by two points.

Fernandez argues that the district court erred in denying his most recent § 3582(c)(2) motion because it did not adequately explain its consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, gave excessive weight to his criminal history and relevant conduct, and did not adequately consider the other § 3553(a) factors or his mitigating arguments. 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 shows that the district court gave due consideration to the § 3582(c) motion as a whole, considered all of the § 3553(a) factors, and contemplated Fernandez’s mitigating arguments, including his positive post-sentence rehabilitation efforts and the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among similarly situated defendants; thus, there is no abuse of discretion. See Evans, 587 F.3d at 672-73 & n.11; United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1009-10 (5th Cir. 1995).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.