Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-24-10099/USCOURTS-ca5-24-10099-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mario Perez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 24-10099

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Mario Perez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CR-271-11

______________________________

Before Graves, Willett, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Mario Perez, federal prisoner #50701-177, appeals the denial of his 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion to reduce his sentence. Perez argues, 

among other things, that the district court failed to consider properly the 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors or to articulate sufficiently its analysis of those 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 4, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 24-10099 Document: 41-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/04/2024
No. 24-10099

2

factors. We review the denial for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. 

Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020).

The district court expressly stated that it had reviewed the 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion, the record, and all the § 3553(a) factors. The 

court concluded that, since Perez had served less than half of his sentence for 

his participation in a dangerous drug-trafficking conspiracy, a reduction of 

his sentence would not reflect the seriousness of his conduct, promote 

respect for the law, provide just punishment, or afford adequate deterrence 

to his criminal conduct. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(A)-(B). The 

district court was not required to offer further explanation for its decision.

See Chavez-Meza v. United States, 585 U.S. 109, 116 (2018). 

Perez’s mere disagreement with the district court’s assessment of the 

§ 3553(a) factors provides no basis for holding that the court abused its 

discretion. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694. Because the § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) 

denial is independently supported by the district court’s § 3553(a) analysis, 

we need not consider Perez’s contentions that he identified extraordinary 

and compelling reasons and that he does not constitute a danger to the safety 

of others and the community. See United States v. Rollins, 53 F.4th 353, 358 

(5th Cir. 2022).

The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 24-10099 Document: 41-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/04/2024