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 pursuant 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 within the 

applicable guidelines range. Alternatively, he argues that even if the district 

 

* 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

January 13, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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

2

court recognized that he was eligible for a reduction, it erred by failing to 

reevaluate the sentencing 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 extent 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 

warranted 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 reflects 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, the record as a 

whole reflects that the district court implicitly determined that CentenoGuerrero 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, the 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: 01/13/2017
No. 16-50249

3

his mitigating assertions, including 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