IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40010

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAIME ARMANDO RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:93-CR-156-3

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jaime Armando Rodriguez, federal prisoner # 64773-079, appeals the 

denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence based upon 

retroactive Amendment 782 to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. He contends that the district 

court abused its discretion in denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion and that it should 

have granted the motion because he is a nonviolent first-time offender, he does 

not have a propensity for future criminal conduct, he has an excellent prison 

 

* 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 15, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40010 Document: 00513680278 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/15/2016
No. 16-40010

2

record, and he has worked and studied in the prison system. He maintains 

that the district court erred in not considering the Sentencing Commission’s 

policy statement and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. In 

addition, Rodriguez asserts that his sentence is procedurally erroneous and

substantively unreasonable.

The district court considered Rodriguez’s arguments in his § 3582(c)(2) 

motion, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, and the 

probation officer’s addendum addressing the motion. Although the district 

court implicitly determined that Rodriguez was eligible for a sentence 

reduction, the court concluded that the relevant sentencing factors and the 

circumstances of the case weighed against exercising its authority to grant a 

sentence reduction. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010). The 

district court was under no obligation to grant Rodriguez a sentence reduction 

despite his eligibility for one. See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 673 

(5th Cir. 2009). Rodriguez’s argument that the district court did not properly 

consider and balance the sentencing factors and that the court should reassess 

them is insufficient to show an abuse of discretion. See United States v. 

Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995). We have rejected the suggestion 

that a district court must grant a § 3582(c)(2) motion based on amendments to 

the Guidelines because failing to do so creates unwarranted sentencing 

disparities and fails to take into account the reasons for the amendments. 

United States v. Smith, 595 F.3d 1322, 1323 (5th Cir. 2010). Because the 

district court’s decision was not based upon an error of law or a clearly 

erroneous assessment of the evidence, the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying the motion. See United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 

713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-40010 Document: 00513680278 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/15/2016