Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10419/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10419-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Luis Alonzo Pena
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10419

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LUIS ALONZO PENA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:08-CR-118-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Luis Alonzo Pena, federal prisoner # 36979-177, appeals the district 

court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction

based on Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which 

lowered the base offense levels in the drug quantity table set forth in U.S.S.G. 

§ 2D1.1(c). The district court held that Pena was not entitled to a reduction 

 

* 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 21, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10419 Document: 00513316519 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2015
No. 15-10419

2

because the drug quantity for which he was held accountable at his original 

sentencing would result in the same base offense level after the amendment.

We review a district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence under 

§ 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 

672 (5th Cir. 2009). At his original sentencing, Pena was assigned a base 

offense level of 38 under § 2D1.1(c)(1) because he was held accountable for the 

equivalent of 477,540 kilograms of marijuana. Under amended § 2D1.1(c), 

Pena’s base offense level remains 38. Thus, Amendment 782 did not lower 

Pena’s applicable guidelines ranges, and § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a 

reduction in his sentence. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B), p.s.

Pena complains that the district court should not have based its decision 

on his presentence report without giving him notice and an opportunity to 

challenge its reliability. He also complains that the district court denied his 

motion without considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. He has not shown 

an abuse of discretion. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010); 

United States v. Mueller, 168 F.3d 186, 189 (5th Cir. 1999). Furthermore, any

attempt to relitigate the facts underlying Pena’s original conviction and 

sentencing exceeds the limited scope of a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See United 

States v. Hernandez, 645 F.3d 709, 711-12 (5th Cir. 2011).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-10419 Document: 00513316519 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2015