Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-10026/USCOURTS-ca5-16-10026-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Oscar Gonzalez-Ramos
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10026

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

OSCAR GONZALEZ-RAMOS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:08-CR-185-1

Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Oscar Gonzalez-Ramos, federal prisoner # 38177-177, appeals the

district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence 

reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. In denying 

the motion, the district court explained that it had previously reduced 

Gonzalez-Ramos’s sentence based on Amendment 782 and that it could not 

 

* 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

July 26, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10026 Document: 00513610354 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/26/2016
No. 16-10026

2

reduce the sentence beyond the 120-month statutory minimum term of 

imprisonment set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). 

Gonzalez-Ramos contends that the district court abused its discretion in 

denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion. He argues that the district court failed to 

consider and appropriately weigh the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

and that the 120-month sentence was procedurally and substantively 

unreasonable. According to Gonzalez-Ramos, he qualified for a sentence 

reduction under Amendment 782 and should have received a reduction to 97 

months of imprisonment based on his status as a first-time, non-violent drug 

offender and his rehabilitative efforts while in prison. 

The district court correctly determined that Gonzalez-Ramos was 

eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782. See Dillon v. United 

States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010). The district court also correctly concluded 

that it could not reduce Gonzalez-Ramos’s sentence below the 120-month 

mandatory minimum term of imprisonment set forth in § 841(b)(1)(A). See

United States v. Pardue, 36 F.3d 429, 431 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, 

Gonzalez-Ramos has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in 

denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion. See United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 

717 (5th Cir. 2011). The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 16-10026 Document: 00513610354 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/26/2016