Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40979/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40979-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Enrique Alberto Morejon
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40979

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ENRIQUE ALBERTO MOREJON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:05-CR-37-1

Before DAVIS, JONES and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Enrique Alberto Morejon, federal prisoner # 26859-050, appeals the 

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

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

argues that the district court erred in reducing his sentence to only 133 months 

without holding a hearing because he should have had notice and an 

* 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

July 12, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 15-40979 Document: 00513588872 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2016
No. 15-40979

opportunity to contest or challenge the “new information” that the district 

court relied upon in determining his sentence reduction. 

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). In assessing whether to grant a sentence 

reduction, the district court considered Morejon’s § 3582(c)(2) motion; the 

written plea agreement; the original and revised guidelines ranges of 

imprisonment; and the presentence report (PSR), which detailed the facts 

surrounding Morejon’s failure to appear for his original sentencing hearing and 

his subsequent arrest. The district court exercised its discretion and granted 

a reduction that was within the amended guidelines range. See Evans, 587 

F.3d at 673. While Morejon suggests that the district court did not sufficiently 

reduce his sentence, his argument is misguided. Because the district court was 

not obligated to reduce Morejon’s sentence at all, the district court did not have 

to reduce it further than it did within the recalculated guidelines range. Id. 

Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by not granting 

Morejon a greater reduction in sentence. See id.

Morejon does not show that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. 

See FED. R. CRIM. P. 43(b)(4); United States v. Patterson, 42 F.3d 246, 248-49 

(5th Cir. 1994). Further, while a district court that intends to rely on new 

evidence in ruling on a § 3582(c)(2) motion should give the defendant adequate 

notice and an opportunity to respond, there was no new evidence considered 

by the district court in ruling on Morejon’s § 3582(c)(2) motion. Cf. United 

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

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 15-40979 Document: 00513588872 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2016