IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-10641

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FUNAKI FALAHOLA, also known as Noc,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:14-CR-266-28

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Funaki Falahola appeals the district court’s denial of a sentence 

reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). With the benefit of liberal construction, 

he contends that he merits a sentence reduction under several Amendments to 

the Sentencing Guidelines, including Amendments 780, 782, and 794. In 

support of his challenge, Falahola argues that he deserves a mitigating role 

adjustment as a minor participant in the offense and not one for being a leader 

 

* 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 26, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-10641 Document: 00514323820 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/26/2018
No. 17-10641

2

in the offense. He also contends that he deserves a sentence reduction on 

account of “sentencing manipulation” in that the length of the investigation by 

law enforcement “resulted in greater culpability than needed.” Falahola 

makes some of his arguments for the first time on appeal. He also has filed 

motions for (1) reconsideration of the clerk’s denial of his motion to stay 

proceedings and (2) appointment of counsel. 

As for Falahola’s challenge of the district court’s denial of a § 3582(c)(2) 

sentence reduction under Amendment 782, as well as any argument he makes 

under Amendment 780, his briefing is inadequate. See Brinkmann v. Dallas 

County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987) (holding that 

an appellant’s failure to identify an error in the district court’s analysis is the 

same as though no appeal had been taken); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-

25 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding that, although their briefs are afforded liberal 

construction, even pro se litigants must brief arguments to preserve them). 

Because Falahola fails to make an argument containing “the reasons he 

deserves the requested relief with citation to the authorities, statutes and 

parts of the record relied on,” we reject this portion of his appeal. Yohey, 985 

F.2d at 225 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Falahola’s remaining challenges, to the extent they are adequately 

briefed, are unavailing. Amendment 794 became effective with the 2015 

Guidelines. See United States v. Gomez-Valle, 828 F.3d 324, 327 (5th Cir. 

2016). The district court applied the 2015 Guidelines, which already 

incorporated Amendment 794 into Falahola’s guidelines calculations. 

Falohola’s other arguments concerning the district court’s application of the 

guideline provisions for his role in the offense and the improper length of the 

investigation in his case are not cognizable in this appeal of a § 3582(c)(2) 

proceeding. A § 3582(c)(2) proceeding is not a full resentencing and does not 

 Case: 17-10641 Document: 00514323820 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/26/2018
No. 17-10641

3

provide a prisoner the opportunity to challenge his original sentence or 

conviction. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 825-26 (2010); United 

States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5th Cir. 1995); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(3), 

p.s.

Because Falahola’s challenges on appeal are unavailing, this court 

DENIES his motion to reconsider and DENIES his motion for appointment of 

counsel AS UNNECESSARY. The district court’s denial of Falahola’s 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion is AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 17-10641 Document: 00514323820 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/26/2018