Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-40252/USCOURTS-ca5-16-40252-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Victor Manuel Macias
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40252

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VICTOR MANUEL MACIAS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:08-CR-715-2

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Victor Manuel Macias appeals the district court’s 

denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his 101-month sentence 

for possession with the intent to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine. 

His motion was based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. 

Macias argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his 

motion, contending that the district court’s order does not provide a sufficient 

 

* 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: 16-40252 Document: 00513724985 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/19/2016
No. 16-40252

2

basis for appellate review because it does not contain reasons for the denial of 

his § 3582(c)(2) motion. Macias also asserts that the court failed to consider 

his conduct prior to the offense and his postsentencing rehabilitative efforts

and failed to notify him of a new presentence report.

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). Contrary to Macias’s assertion, a district court is not 

required to provide reasons for denying a § 3582(c)(2) motion. See id. at 674. 

Neither is a district court required to consider the defendant’s postsentencing 

rehabilitative conduct and is under no obligation to grant a sentence reduction 

despite the defendant’s eligibility for one. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. 

(n.1(B)(iii)); Evans, 587 F.3d at 673 & n.10. No new presentence report was 

prepared, so Macias’s argument on that issue fails.

The district court’s order reflects that it considered Macias’s motion, the 

policy statement under § 1B1.10, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Macias

has not shown that the denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion was an abuse of 

discretion by the district court. See Evans, 587 F.3d at 672; United States v. 

Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995).

The district court’s order is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-40252 Document: 00513724985 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2016