Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10847/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10847-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Fernandez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10847

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DAVID FERNANDEZ, also known as Ears,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CR-41-7

Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David Fernandez, federal prisoner # 32964-177, appeals from the district 

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

188-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute less than 50 grams 

of cocaine base. That sentence is the result of a previous reduction from the 

original 235-month sentence as the result of a retroactive amendment that 

lowered the Guideline for crack offense. Fernandez now seeks a modification 

* 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

June 24, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 15-10847 Document: 00513564225 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/24/2016
No. 15-10847

of his sentence based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which 

lowered most offense levels for any drug offenses by two points.

Fernandez argues that the district court erred in denying his most recent 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion because it did not adequately explain its consideration of 

the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, gave excessive weight to his criminal history 

and relevant conduct, and did not adequately consider the other § 3553(a) 

factors or his mitigating arguments. We review for abuse of discretion a 

district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). 

United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). 

The record shows that the district court gave due consideration to the § 

3582(c) motion as a whole, considered all of the § 3553(a) factors, and 

contemplated Fernandez’s mitigating arguments, including his positive postsentence rehabilitation efforts and the need to avoid unwarranted sentence 

disparities among similarly situated defendants; thus, there is no abuse of 

discretion. See Evans, 587 F.3d at 672-73 & n.11; United States v. Whitebird, 

55 F.3d 1007, 1009-10 (5th Cir. 1995).

Accordingly, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 15-10847 Document: 00513564225 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/24/2016