Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-51122/USCOURTS-ca5-15-51122-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daniel Thilburg
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-51122

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DANIEL THILBURG,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:11-CR-1551-1

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Daniel Thilburg appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his 86-month sentence on his guilty plea 

conviction for importing 50 kilograms or more of marijuana into the United 

States. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1) and (b)(3). He based his motion on 

the retroactive provisions of Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing 

 

* 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

January 12, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-51122 Document: 00513832906 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2017
No. 15-51122

2

Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10; U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c); see also Dillon v. 

United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010). 

The district court recognized that Thilburg 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). Thilburg does not show 

that the district court relied on erroneous factfindings or legal conclusions. See

United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011). Nor does he 

show that the district court failed to consider the factors it was required to 

consider. See United States v. Larry, 632 F.3d 933, 936 (5th Cir. 2011). His 

claim of unwarranted sentencing disparity fails because he does not show 

disparity “among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty 

of similar conduct,” as he points to no defendant with a record similar to his.

§ 3553(a)(6). Consequently, Thilburg fails to demonstrate that denying him a 

sentence reduction was an abuse of discretion. See Henderson, 636 F.3d at 717; 

Larry, 632 F.3d at 936; United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672-73 (5th Cir. 

2009).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-51122 Document: 00513832906 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/12/2017