IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-20546

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

J. MATILDE BARRIOS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:92-CR-111-6

Before DAVIS, HAYNES and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

J. Matilde Barrios, federal prisoner # 62104-079, appeals the denial of 

his motion for a reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We review 

the district court’s denial of the § 3582(c)(2) motion for an abuse of discretion. 

United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009).

Barrios contends that the district court should have granted a reduction 

in sentence to prevent unwarranted sentencing disparities among him and his 

 

* 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

March 11, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-20546 Document: 00514867038 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/11/2019
No. 18-20546

2

more culpable codefendants. He indicates that, because he was a non-essential 

participant in the offense of conviction, he was entitled to a sentence reduction 

under Amendment 794 to the Sentencing Guidelines.

In his § 3582(c)(2) motion, Barrios did not mention a specific amendment 

underlying his request for a sentence reduction. He cites Amendment 794 for 

the first time on appeal. We generally will not consider theories of relief raised

originally on appeal absent exceptional circumstances. Leverette v. Louisville 

Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999). In any event, the district court 

was not authorized to grant a reduction based on Amendment 794 because that 

amendment is not listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d). See Dillon v. United States, 

560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010); see also United States v. Drath, 89 F.3d 216, 217-18 

(5th Cir. 1996). Barrios’s claim that Amendment 794 constitutes a clarifying 

amendment that can be applied retroactively is unavailing. See United States 

v. Sanchez-Villareal, 857 F.3d 714, 719-21 (5th Cir. 2017).

Barrios also suggests that the district court erred by finding that he was 

not entitled to a reduction based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. 

However, a district court will consider whether a reduction is merited based on 

the § 3553(a) factors only if it first concludes that a reduction is authorized and 

consistent with § 1B1.10. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 826-27. A sentence reduction 

is authorized if the guidelines range applicable to a prisoner subsequently has 

been lowered based on an amendment to the Guidelines listed in § 1B1.10(d). 

§ 1B1.10(a)(1). Barrios has failed to identify such an amendment, and, thus, 

the district court was not required to consider the § 3553(a) factors. See Dillon, 

560 U.S. at 826.

Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief. 

See Evans, 587 F.3d at 672. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-20546 Document: 00514867038 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/11/2019