United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-11235

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Cy Viator, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:20-CV-3446

Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Cy Viator, federal prisoner # 84803-379, is serving a 140-month 

sentence for conspiracy to distribute oxycodone and hydrocodone and 

unlawful use of a communication facility. He appeals the district court’s 

denial of his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 26, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-11235 Document: 00516180376 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/26/2022
No. 20-11235

2

§ 3582(c)(1)(A). In his brief, Viator argues that the district court should have 

granted his motion because his medical records showed that he was at risk for 

severe illness due to COVID-19. As to the district court’s finding that he 

failed to demonstrate that he would not be a danger to society if released, 

Viator argues that the threat of being sent back to prison would motivate him 

to follow the law. Further, he contends that release is warranted because his 

parents and daughter need his support.

We review the district court’s denial of a motion for a sentence 

reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A) for abuse of discretion. See United States v. 

Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). A district court abuses its 

discretion when it “bases its decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous 

assessment of the evidence.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). In conducting this review, we defer to the district court’s 

application of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Id. “[R]eversal is 

not justified where the appellate court might reasonably have concluded that 

a different sentence was appropriate.” Id. (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). 

A district court must consider the § 3553(a) factors “to the extent that 

they are applicable” before granting a defendant’s motion for a sentence 

reduction. § 3582(c)(1)(A); see also United States v. Lightfoot, 724 F.3d 593, 

597-98 (5th Cir. 2013). In this case, the district court considered proper 

§ 3553(a) factors, specifically the nature and circumstances of Viator’s 

offense, his history and characteristics, and the need for the sentence to 

reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, to 

provide just punishment for the offense, to deter criminal conduct, and to 

protect the public. There is no indication that the district court’s decision 

was based on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the 

evidence. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693. The district court provided 

detailed explanations of its reasons, supported by the record, for finding that 

Case: 20-11235 Document: 00516180376 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/26/2022
No. 20-11235

3

the § 3553(a) factors did not justify granting Viator’s motion for a reduced 

sentence. In light of the deference we give to the district court’s application 

of the § 3553(a) factors, the denial of Viator’s motion was not an abuse of 

discretion. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Viator’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.

Case: 20-11235 Document: 00516180376 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/26/2022