Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-40144/USCOURTS-ca5-16-40144-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard Herminio Garcia
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40144

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RICHARD HERMINIO GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:13-CR-1404-1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Richard Herminio Garcia, federal prisoner # 29716-380, appeals the 

district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion, in which he sought 

a reduction of his sentence for possession with intent to distribute five 

kilograms or more of cocaine. The motion was based on Amendment 782 to the 

Sentencing Guidelines. 

 

* 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

September 19, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40144 Document: 00513683670 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/19/2016
No. 16-40144

2

In his first argument, Garcia contends that the district court’s order does 

not provide a sufficient basis for appellate review because it does not contain 

reasons for the denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion. Garcia additionally argues 

that the district court abused its discretion in denying § 3582(c)(2) relief, 

asserting that he has never been involved in any incident of violence, has not 

received any incident reports in the Bureau of Prisons, and is an inmate with 

a minimum security rating who is housed at a federal prison camp.

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). Garcia’s arguments are unavailing.

First, a district court is not required to provide findings of facts and 

conclusions of law when denying a § 3582(c)(2) motion. See id. at 674. Second, 

the district court’s statement of reasons for Garcia’s sentence explains that, at 

Garcia’s sentencing, the Government requested the two-level reduction that 

Garcia would have received had Amendment 782 been effective at the time of 

his sentencing and that the district court acknowledged the effect of 

Amendment 782 in sentencing Garcia. The district court was not required to 

consider the post-sentencing rehabilitative conduct cited by Garcia on appeal 

and was under no obligation to grant Garcia a sentence reduction irrespective 

of his eligibility for one. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(B)(iii)); Evans, 

587 F.3d at 673 & n.10.

The district court’s order reflects that it considered Garcia’s motion and, 

to the extent they were applicable, the policy statement under § 1B1.10 and 

the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Garcia has not shown that the denial of his 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion was an abuse of the district court’s discretion. See Evans, 

587 F.3d at 673-74; United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 

1995).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-40144 Document: 00513683670 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/19/2016