Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50773/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50773-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hector De Hoyos
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50773

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HECTOR DE HOYOS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:12-CR-1709-1

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Hector De Hoyos appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion, as well as his related motion for reconsideration, in which 

he sought a reduction of his 120-month sentence for conspiring to possess with 

the intent to distribute less than 50 kilograms of marijuana. De Hoyos argues 

that the district court abused its discretion in denying him a sentence 

reduction pursuant to Amendment 782 of the Sentencing Guidelines, which 

 

* 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

October 19, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50773 Document: 00513726055 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/19/2016
No. 15-50773

2

effectively lowered most drug-related base offense levels. De Hoyos contends 

that the district court gave excessive weight to his criminal history and failed 

to adequately consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, including 

the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, and De Hoyos’s postsentencing conduct.

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 establishes that the district court 

considered the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, as well as De Hoyos’s postsentencing conduct, in evaluating whether a sentence reduction was 

warranted. See United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1009-10 (5th Cir. 

1995); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(B)(iii)). De Hoyos has not shown that 

the district court abused its discretion by denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion based 

on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence. See 

United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717-18 (5th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, 

the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-50773 Document: 00513726055 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2016