Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-24-40006/USCOURTS-ca5-24-40006-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose De La Cruz Claros-Amaya
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 24-40006

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jose De La Cruz Claros-Amaya, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:16-CR-28-6

______________________________

Before Richman, Douglas, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jose De La Cruz Claros-Amaya, federal prisoner number 27440-078,

appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Part B, Subpart 1 of Amendment 

821 to the Sentencing Guidelines. His motion requested a reduction of his 

140-month sentence for conspiracy to import and to manufacture and 

_____________________

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 10, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 24-40006 Document: 71-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/10/2024
No. 24-40006

2

distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, intending and knowing that the 

cocaine would be unlawfully imported into the United States. The district 

court determined that Claros-Amaya was not eligible for a reduction under 

U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1 due to his aggravating role adjustment under U.S.S.G. 

§ 3B1.1(c), and it alternatively reasoned that, “[e]ven if eligible, the Court 

would not reduce the sentence.”

Claros-Amaya argues that the district court erred in denying his 

motion because, under the rule of lenity, his aggravating role adjustment 

alone did not disqualify him from receiving a sentence reduction under 

§ 4C1.1 because § 4C1.1(a)(10) should be interpreted to allow for a reduction 

if he did not both receive an aggravating role adjustment and engage in a 

continuing criminal enterprise. Claros-Amaya’s attorney-prepared briefs do 

not provide any facts or arguments challenging the district court’s 

consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, nor do they otherwise 

challenge the district court’s determination that even if Claros-Amaya was

eligible, the court would not have reduced his sentence. Claros-Amaya has 

abandoned this issue by failing to brief it. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 

224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dall. Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 

F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); see also Beasley v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 116, 118 

(5th Cir. 1986).

In light of the foregoing, there is no basis for a determination that the 

district court abused its discretion. See United States v. Calton, 900 F.3d 706, 

710 (5th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, the decision of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 24-40006 Document: 71-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/10/2024