Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40600/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40600-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daniel Silva
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40600

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

versus

DANIEL SILVA,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:11-CR-124-1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Daniel Silva appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to 

 

* 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

August 24, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40600 Document: 00513650242 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/24/2016
No. 15-40600

2

reduce his 146-month sentence on his conviction of possessing with intent to 

distribute 31 kilograms of cocaine. The motion was based on the retroactive 

provisions of Amendment 782 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. 

§§ 1B1.10, 2D1.1(c); see also Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010). 

The district court recognized that Silva was eligible for a reduction under 

§ 3582(c)(2) but determined that none was appropriate in light of the applicable sentencing factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); see also United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011); United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 

1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995). The additional “facts” regarding his rehabilitation 

that Silva now offers were not before the district court, so we will not consider 

them. See Theriot v. Par. of Jefferson, 185 F.3d 477, 491 n.26 (5th Cir. 1999). 

Moreover, Silva does not show that the more extensive argument he presents 

on appeal would have persuaded the district court to exercise its discretion 

differently had the argument been presented there. There was no abuse of 

discretion. See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672–73 (5th Cir. 2009); 

Whitebird, 55 F.3d at 1010.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-40600 Document: 00513650242 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/24/2016