Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-41106/USCOURTS-ca5-15-41106-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Manuel Esparza
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41106

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN MANUEL ESPARZA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:08-CR-40-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Manuel Esparza, federal prisoner # 67544-079, appeals the denial 

of a reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) of the 17-year prison sentence 

imposed for his guilty plea convictions of conspiring to possess with intent to 

distribute, and possessing with intent to distribute, more than five kilograms 

of cocaine. He argues that the district court erred by construing his pro se 

letter seeking appointment of counsel as a § 3582(c)(2) motion and denying him 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 12, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41106 Document: 00513833399 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2017
No. 15-41106

2

a reduction without written reasons and without considering the factors in 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) or his post-sentencing rehabilitation and training. 

We review the district court’s interpretation of the guidelines and 

sentencing statutes de novo. United States v. Carter, 595 F.3d 575, 577 (5th 

Cir. 2010). Esparza was not eligible for a reduction because his sentence was 

not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the 

Sentencing Commission.” § 3582(c)(2). Rather, the district court sentenced 

Esparza to 17 years of imprisonment based on his binding agreement under 

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C). See Freeman v. United States, 

564 U.S. 522, 534-40 (2011) (Sotomayor, J., concurring); United States v. 

Benitez, 822 F.3d 807, 809-12 (5th Cir. 2016). Therefore, we affirm the district 

court’s denial of a sentence reduction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2111; United States v. 

Gonzalez-Balderas, 105 F.3d 981, 984 (5th Cir. 1997). To the extent that 

Esparza challenges the district court’s denial of his request for appointment of 

counsel, a § 3582(c)(2) movant has no such right, United States v. Whitebird, 

55 F.3d 1007, 1010-11 (5th Cir. 1995), and the interests of justice did not 

warrant a discretionary appointment given his statutory ineligibility for a 

sentence reduction.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-41106 Document: 00513833399 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/12/2017