Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-41428/USCOURTS-ca5-15-41428-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dante Barrera
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41428

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DANTE BARRERA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:03-CR-238-1

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dante Barrera, federal prisoner # 24576-179, who stands convicted of 

possession with intent to distribute 14.55 kilograms of cocaine, appeals the 

district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) based upon Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines and the 

denial of his motion for reconsideration. Barrera argues that a sentence 

reduction is warranted because his positive post-sentencing conduct 

 

* 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

November 9, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41428 Document: 00513753142 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/09/2016
No. 15-41428

2

demonstrates that an earlier release from prison would not pose a danger to 

the community.

When considering a § 3582(c)(2) motion, the district court is to conduct a 

two-step analysis. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010). The court 

must first determine whether the defendant is eligible for a reduction under 

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. Id. at 827. If he is, the district court must then “consider 

any applicable [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors and determine whether, in its 

discretion,” a reduction is warranted under the facts of the case. Id. We review 

the district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for 

an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 

2009). 

The district court found that Barrera was eligible for the reduction of 

sentence. The district court then exercised its discretion to deny the motion, 

determining that Barrera’s criminal history and prison disciplinary history 

indicated that the need to protect the public outweighed the mitigating 

circumstances of Barrera’s positive post-sentencing conduct. Barrera’s 

argument that the district court did not properly balance the sentencing factors 

is insufficient to show an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Whitebird, 

55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995); see also Evans, 587 F.3d at 672. 

With respect to Barrera’s motion for reconsideration, the untimely 

motion was unauthorized and without a jurisdictional basis. See United States 

v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 141-42 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Miramontez, 995 

F.2d 56, 58 n.2 (5th Cir. 1993); FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(1)(A). We affirm the denial 

of that motion on this alternative basis. See Early, 27 F.3d at 141-42.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-41428 Document: 00513753142 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/09/2016