Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-24-50393/USCOURTS-ca5-24-50393-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronald Eliud Maradiaga-Sanchez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 24-50393

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Ronald Eliud Maradiaga-Sanchez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:21-CR-2029-1

______________________________

Before Graves, Willett, and Wilson, and Circuit Judges. 

Per Curiam:*

Ronald Eliud Maradiaga-Sanchez, federal prisoner # 83823-479, 

appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to 

reduce his 50-month within-guidelines sentence for illegal reentry. His 

motion was based on Part A of Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines. 

Maradiaga-Sanchez argues that the district court erred in denying his motion, 

_____________________

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 15, 2025

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 24-50393 Document: 63-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/15/2025
No. 24-50393

2

contending that the district court’s reasons for the denial were insufficient, 

the court failed to consider his arguments regarding rehabilitation, and the 

court erred in weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. 

We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision whether 

to reduce a sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Calton, 900 

F.3d 706, 710 (5th Cir. 2018). The district court denied MaradiagaSanchez’s motion upon finding that a sentence reduction was not warranted 

based on the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect 

for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a)(2)(A). The district court’s reasons for denying MaradiagaSanchez’s motion were sufficient. See United States v. Batiste, 980 F.3d 466, 

479 (5th Cir. 2020); United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 673–74 (5th Cir. 

2009). Furthermore, even if the district court did not expressly address 

Maradiaga-Sanchez’s rehabilitation, the issue was raised in his § 3582(c)(2) 

motion, and we can infer that the district court considered his rehabilitative 

efforts. See Evans, 587 F.3d at 673; see also Concepcion v. United States, 597 

U.S. 481, 502 (2022). Maradiaga-Sanchez’s remaining arguments 

concerning the § 3553(a) factors merely show his disagreement with how the 

court weighed those factors and are insufficient to show an abuse of 

discretion. See Evans, 587 F.3d at 672–73.

Based on the foregoing, Maradiaga-Sanchez has failed to demonstrate 

any legal error or clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence in the district 

court’s denial of his motion. See Batiste, 980 F.3d at 469. Accordingly, the 

district court’s order is AFFIRMED.

Case: 24-50393 Document: 63-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/15/2025