### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 50249 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. ROMAN CENTENO

- GUERRERO , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:12

- CR

- 11

- 2

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Roman Centeno

- Guerrero challenges the district court’s denial of his motion for a reduction in sentence purs uant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He contends that the district court erroneously concluded that he was not eligible for a sentence reduction because he was not originally sentenced with in the applicable g uidelines range. A lternative ly, he argues that even if the d istrict

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 13, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-50249 Document: 00513835047 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/13/2017No. 16

- 50249

2 c ourt recognized that he was eligible for a reduction , it erred by failing to reevaluate the se ntencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Section 3582(c)(2) establishes a two

- step inquiry. See Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 817, 826

- 27 (2010). At the first step, a district court is to determine whether a reduction is consistent with U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 by determining the prisoner’s eligibility for a reduction and the ex tent of the authorized reduction. See id . In the second step, a district court is to “consider any applicable § 3553(a) factors and determine whether, in its discretion, the reduction authorized by reference to the policies relevant at step one is

warran ted in whole or in part under the particular circumstances of the case.” Id . at 827. We review the district court’s refusal to reduce Centeno

- Guerrero’s sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Henderson , 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011) . “A district court abuses its discretion if 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 the present case , the record reflect s that the district court did not explicitly perform the first step of the analysis set forth in Dillon . However, the district court’s written order denying a reduction recites the original and the amended guidelines ranges and calculations. Further, t he record as a whole reflects that the district court implicitly determined that Centeno

Guerrero was eligible for a sentence reduction

. This implicit determination of eligibility is sufficient. See United States v. Larry , 632 F.3d 933, 936 (5th Cir. 2011)

. Turning to the second step of the § 3582(c)(2) analysis , t he record shows that the district court gave due consideration to: Centeno

- Guerrero ’s § 3582(c) (2) motion; the policy statement in § 1B1.10; the § 3553(a) factors; and Case: 16-50249 Document: 00513835047 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/13/2017No. 16

- 50249

3 his mitigating assertions, i ncluding his English

- as - a - Second

- Language coursework and his work detail while in prison

. The district court was under no obligation to grant Centeno

- Guerrero a sentence reduction despite his eligibility for one. See United States v. Evans , 587 F.3d 667, 673 (5th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, Centeno

- Guerrero fails to show the requisite abuse of discretion. See Henderson , 636 F.3d at 717; United States v. Whitebird , 55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995). AFFIRMED. Case: 16-50249 Document: 00513835047 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/13/2017