IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41729

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee 

v. 

JUAN MANUEL SOSA, 

Defendant - Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 1:11-CR-869-1 

Before BARKSDALE, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Manuel Sosa, federal prisoner # 00054-379, appeals the denial of 

his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction of his sentence for possession, 

with intent to distribute, a controlled substance. Sosa contends: he was 

eligible for a reduction; and the court abused its discretion by denying relief. 

Sosa pleaded guilty to possession of more than 100 kilograms of 

marijuana, with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 

(b)(1)(B), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. In early 2012, he was sentenced under the thenapplicable 2011 advisory Sentencing Guidelines to 108-months’ imprisonment. 

 

* 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

April 17, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41729 Document: 00513955240 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/17/2017
No. 15-41729

2 

In 2015, he moved for the court to reduce his sentence, citing Amendment 782 

to the Guidelines. The district court denied his motion, concluding his sentence 

“was and is appropriate under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) especially given [Sosa]’s 

extensive involvement in this drug distribution scheme”. 

A district court’s decision to deny a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, “its interpretation of the 

Guidelines de novo, and its findings of fact for clear error”. United States v. 

Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). In considering a § 3582(c)(2) motion, the court first 

determines whether movant is eligible for a sentence reduction and then 

whether a reduction “is warranted in whole or in part under the particular 

circumstances of the case”. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010). 

Sosa primarily contends denying relief based on his “extensive 

involvement in this drug distribution scheme” was an abuse of discretion, given 

both the finding at sentencing that he did not have an aggravating role in the 

offense and the lack of evidence showing he participated in a prior transfer of 

marijuana in Atlanta, Georgia. According to the presentence investigation 

report (PSR), Sosa’s role in the offense included renting a box truck, retrieving 

drugs from a stash house, and delivering the truck to a warehouse in 

Brownsville, Texas. One of his co-defendants told authorities Sosa was 

involved in a similar transaction in Atlanta. Although Sosa objected to the 

recitation in the PSR concerning his involvement in the Atlanta transfer, he 

later withdrew his objection. At sentencing, the court adopted the PSR and 

found Sosa participated in the Atlanta transfer and that, while he did not have 

an aggravating role in the offense, his “degree of involvement was significant”. 

Sosa did not file a direct appeal challenging these findings, and a 

§ 3582(c)(2) proceeding is not the appropriate vehicle for re-litigating 

sentencing issues. See United States v. Hernandez, 645 F.3d 709, 712 (5th Cir. 

 Case: 15-41729 Document: 00513955240 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/17/2017
No. 15-41729

3 

2011). Moreover, the finding that Sosa did not have an aggravating role was 

based on a lack of evidence that he had supervisory or decision-making 

authority. Sosa does not explain why this precluded the court’s finding he had 

“extensive involvement in this drug distribution scheme”, which is plausible in

the light of the record as a whole. See United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 

F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008) (“There is no clear error if the district court’s 

finding is plausible in light of the record as a whole.”). 

Sosa also asserts the court failed to adequately consider his postsentencing conduct, but the relevant Guideline commentary states a “court 

may consider post-sentencing conduct”, rather than its being required to do so. 

See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, cmt. n.1(B)(iii). He also states, without more, that the 

court’s ruling fails to comply with the goals of Amendment 782 and “establishes 

unwarranted sentencing disparities”. His counseled brief is not entitled to 

liberal construction, see Beasley v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1986), 

and his conclusory assertions are insufficient to show an abuse of discretion. 

See United States v. Sparks, 2 F.3d 574, 583 (5th Cir. 1986).

In short, Sosa does not establish the decision was based on an error of 

law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, nor does he show it was 

otherwise an abuse of discretion to deny his motion for a sentence reduction. 

See Henderson, 636 F.3d at 717; United States v. Heyliger, 407 F. App’x 803, 

805 (5th Cir. 2011) (affirming denial of § 3582(c)(2) motion based on criminal 

history and seriousness of the offense). The record reflects the court gave due 

consideration to Sosa’s motion as a whole and the § 3553(a) factors. See United 

States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995). 

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 15-41729 Document: 00513955240 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/17/2017