[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-14526

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:05-cr-20223-FAM-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus

FERNANDO CORNIELLE HICIANO,

a.k.a. Papiton, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(May 12, 2016)

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 15-14526 Date Filed: 05/12/2016 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Fernando Cornielle Hiciano, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s 

denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his 180-month sentence for 

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. He seeks relief based on 

Amendment 782 of the Sentencing Guidelines. Hiciano argues that the district 

court abused its discretion because it denied his motion solely based upon the fact 

that he had previously received a reduction for substantial assistance and not based 

on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.

When considering a § 3582(c)(2) motion, the district court must first 

recalculate the guidelines range under the amended guidelines. United States v. 

Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780 (11th Cir. 2000). If the defendant is eligible for a 

sentence reduction, the district court must next decide “whether, in its discretion, it

will elect to impose the newly calculated sentence under the amended guidelines or 

retain the original sentence.” Id. at 781. In doing so, the district court should 

consider the statutory factors listed in § 3553(a) to determine whether the reduction 

is warranted and the extent of the reduction. Id.; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B)(i). 

Although the district court must undertake this analysis, the district court retains its 

discretion not to reduce the sentence. United States v. Vautier, 144 F.3d 756, 760 

(11th Cir. 1998). Thus, in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding, we review the district court’s 

decision to grant or deny a sentence reduction only for abuse of discretion. United 

States v. Hamilton, 715 F.3d 328, 337 n.8 (11th Cir. 2013). 

Case: 15-14526 Date Filed: 05/12/2016 Page: 2 of 3 
3

Here, the district court explained that it had considered Hiciano’s § 

3582(c)(2) motion. It stated that it had taken into account the § 3553(a) factors, 

but reasoned that it had already “reduced the sentence due to the defendant’s 

cooperation to a much greater extent than that recommended by the Government.” 

For this reason, the court concluded that, even though the amendment applied, 

Hiciano’s 180-month sentence was “reasonable.” The district court was not 

required to articulate the applicability of each of the § 3553(a) factors. Hiciano 

addressed the factors in his counseled supplemental reply, and the district court 

specifically acknowledged the responses by the parties before ruling on the motion. 

See United States v. Smith, 568 F.3d 923, 928 (11th Cir. 2009). 

Thus, the district court’s denial of Hiciano’s § 3582(c)(2) motion was not an 

abuse of discretion because the court considered the § 3553(a) factors and 

determined that a 180-month sentence was reasonable. See Vautier, 144 F.3d at 

760 (noting that the district court “has the discretion to decide whether to re-apply 

a downward departure for substantial assistance when considering what sentence 

the court would have imposed under the amended guideline”). Accordingly, we 

affirm the denial of Hiciano’s motion.

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 15-14526 Date Filed: 05/12/2016 Page: 3 of 3