Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50414/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50414-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jesus Aguilar-Sanchez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50414

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

versus

JESUS AGUILAR-SANCHEZ, Also Known as Jesus Aguilar Sanchez,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

No. 2:11-CR-147-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jesus Aguilar-Sanchez, federal prisoner # 70345-280, appeals the denial 

 

* 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 29, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50414 Document: 00513486780 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/29/2016
No. 15-50414

2

of a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court originally sentenced him to 90 months—within the guideline range of 87 to 108 

months—for possessing with intent to distribute cocaine. The court went

below the 10-year statutory minimum in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)―even though 

the offense involved more than five kilograms of cocaine―because AguilarSanchez met the conditions for the safety valve in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). Later, 

the Sentencing Commission retroactively lowered the guideline range to 70 to 

87 months, see U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 782, and the parties moved the court 

to reduce the sentence to 72 months under § 3582(c)(2). 

The district court acknowledged Aguilar-Sanchez’s eligibility for a reduction but denied it. We review that decision for abuse of discretion. United 

States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011).

Aguilar-Sanchez claims that the court gave improper weight to the unusually high purity of the cocaine, which the court noted can be a basis for an 

upward departure. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. (n.27(C)). The court was 

not upwardly departing here but, instead, was only considering the relevant 

factors. See § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A), (5)(A); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(B)), 

p.s.; see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.7. Aguilar-Sanchez also urges that the court 

should not have treated the prior safety-valve reduction under U.S.S.G. 

§§ 2D1.1(b)(16) and 5C1.2 and § 3553(f) as weighing against a reduction in the 

sentence, but the court properly took into account the context of the original 

sentence when it decided against a reduction. See, e.g., United States v. Evans, 

587 F.3d 667, 673 & n.11 (5th Cir. 2009); see also § 3553(a)(2)(A). AguilarSanchez’s contention that the court failed to accord adequate weight to the 

need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, see § 3553(a)(6), is also unavailing. See United States v. Smith, 595 F.3d 1322, 1323 (5th Cir. 2010). 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-50414 Document: 00513486780 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/29/2016