Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-50187/USCOURTS-ca5-16-50187-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Manuel Ramirez-Arellano
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-50187

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

MANUEL RAMIREZ-ARELLANO, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 2:12-CR-1929-1 

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Manuel Ramirez-Arellano, who is serving a 63-month prison sentence 

after pleading guilty to conspiracy to import more than one kilogram of heroin, 

appeals the district court’s decision to deny his motion for a sentence 

modification under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Through that motion, he requested 

that the court reduce his sentence based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing 

 

* 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

December 20, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-50187 Document: 00513805844 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2016
No. 16-50187

2 

Guidelines, which had the effect of retroactively lowering most drug-related 

base offense levels by two levels. 

Ramirez-Arellano has not shown that the district court abused its 

discretion in denying the motion. See United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 

713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011). The court correctly recognized that he was eligible 

for a reduction; however, it denied the motion as a matter of discretion citing 

the nature and circumstances of the offense, i.e., the large quantity of heroin 

for which Ramirez-Arellano was held responsible, which is an appropriate 

factor to consider. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010); 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). In addition, the district court had before it RamirezArellano’s arguments in favor of a sentence reduction and gave due 

consideration to the § 3582(c)(2) motion. See United States v. Whitebird, 55 

F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 16-50187 Document: 00513805844 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2016