IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-50252

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PAUL EDWARD MCKINNEY,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:12-CR-1867-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Paul Edward McKinney, federal prisoner # 07244-380, appeals the 

district court’s grant of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence 

reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. He 

complains that the district court erred in reducing his sentence to 132 months 

rather than to 120 months, which would represent a reduction comparable to 

the reduction he originally received below the applicable guidelines range 

 

* 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

February 6, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-50252 Document: 00513864591 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/06/2017
No. 16-50252

2

following the award of a four-level decrease for his substantial assistance, 

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1.

We review the district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence 

under § 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Evans, 587 

F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). The record establishes that, in assessing 

whether to grant a sentence reduction, the district court considered 

McKinney’s pro se § 3582(c)(2) motion; the parties’ joint § 3582(c)(2) motion

and specific request for a 120-month sentence; the PSR and original and 

revised guidelines ranges of imprisonment; the Government’s § 5K1.1 motion; 

the original sentencing proceedings; and counsel’s argument at the evidentiary 

hearing on the § 3582(c)(2) motion. The district court exercised its discretion 

and granted a reduction below McKinney’s already substantially reduced 

sentence, and the record further shows that, in doing so, the court considered 

the policy statement of § 1B1.10 and the § 3553(a) factors. McKinney thus 

cannot demonstrate any abuse of discretion on the district court’s part. See 

United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995); Evans, 587 F.3d 

at 673. 

McKinney’s assertion that the district court was required to impose the 

sentence requested by the parties is patently incorrect, as is his argument that 

the district court was not permitted to consider the § 3553(a) factors in 

selecting the reduced sentence. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 

(2010); Evans, 587 F.3d at 673; § 1B1.10, comment. (n.1(B)). While he suggests 

that the district court did not sufficiently reduce his sentence, his argument is 

misguided. Because the district court was not obligated to reduce McKinney’s

sentence at all, the district court did not have to reduce it further than it did 

below the recalculated guidelines range. See Evans, 587 F.3d at 673. 

 Case: 16-50252 Document: 00513864591 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/06/2017
No. 16-50252

3

Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by not granting 

McKinney a greater reduction in sentence. See id.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-50252 Document: 00513864591 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/06/2017