Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50566/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50566-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arnold Reyna Alaniz
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50566

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ARNOLD REYNA ALANIZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:90-CR-31-2

Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Arnold Reyna Alaniz, federal prisoner # 53351-080, appeals the denial of 

his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district 

court found that a sentence reduction was not warranted. We review the 

district court’s denial of the motion for an abuse of discretion. United States v. 

Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011). “A district court abuses its 

discretion if it bases its decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous 

 

* 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

April 8, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50566 Document: 00513457447 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2016
No. 15-50566

2

assessment of the evidence.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted).

Reyna Alaniz contends that the district court gave excessive weight to 

his state conviction for attempted murder of a police officer and the purity of 

the heroin involved in his federal offense, and gave insufficient weight to policy 

statements regarding recidivism and the need to avoid unwarranted sentence 

disparities. The record shows that the district court gave due consideration to 

the arguments Reyna Alaniz presented in favor of his motion and concluded 

that a reduction was not warranted in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factors and 

the particular circumstances of the case. See United States v. Whitebird, 55 

F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995). Specifically, the district court focused on the 

seriousness of Reyna Alaniz’s federal drug convictions and his criminal history, 

which were relevant to the § 3553(a) factors of public safety concerns, the lack 

of respect for the law, and the seriousness of the offense. See § 3553(a)(2)(A), 

(C). The district court also discussed positive factors which weighed in favor 

of the reduction, such as the relevant policy statements regarding recidivism 

and unwarranted sentencing disparities, as well as Reyna Alaniz’s 

postconviction conduct. The district court ultimately concluded that Reyna

Alaniz’s criminal history and the danger that a reduced sentence posed to the 

public outweighed these positive factors. Reyna Alaniz’s request that we weigh 

the factors anew is unavailing. Finally, Reyna Alaniz’s unwarranted-disparity 

argument is without merit because it amounts to a request that the court make 

a sentencing reduction mandatory when requested under amendments to the 

Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v. Smith, 595 F.3d 1322, 1323 (5th 

Cir. 2010).

 Case: 15-50566 Document: 00513457447 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2016
No. 15-50566

3

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief. See 

Henderson, 636 F.3d at 717; Whitebird, 55 F.3d at 1010. Thus, the judgment 

of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-50566 Document: 00513457447 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/08/2016