IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-30934

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAMES CHRISTOPHER WEEKS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:08-CR-296-1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Proceeding pro se, James Christopher Weeks, federal prisoner # 14100-

035, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction 

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Weeks, who was convicted of conspiracy to 

distribute methamphetamine and sentenced to 192 months of imprisonment,

moved for a reduction of sentence based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing 

Guidelines. He argues that the district court abused its discretion by failing

 

* 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

November 29, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-30934 Document: 00513777240 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/29/2016
No. 15-30934

2

to adequately explain its decision for denying him a reduction, despite the 

agreement by all parties that his sentence should be reduced, and by failing to 

take into consideration his rehabilitation efforts during his incarceration.

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

pursuant to . . . § 3582(c)(2) for 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 deciding whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2), 

the district court must determine whether the defendant is eligible for a 

sentence modification. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010). If, 

the defendant is eligible, the district court must consider the relevant 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) factors to decide whether a sentence reduction is merited in whole or 

in part under the specific circumstances of the case. Id. at 827.

The district court acknowledged in its order that it considered the motion 

for reduction of sentence and “[took] into account the policy statement set forth 

at USSG § 1B1.10 and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” 

Although the order did not provide additional reasons for the decision, the

record as a whole reflects that the district court “gave due consideration to the 

motion as a whole, and implicitly to the factors set forth in § 3553(a).” 

Henderson, 636 F.3d at 718 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Accordingly, the district court satisfied its obligation to review the sentencing 

factors of § 3553(a). Any argument that the district court did not properly 

balance the sentencing factors is insufficient to show an abuse of discretion. 

See United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995); see also

United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). Weeks’s request for 

appointment of counsel is denied.

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED. 

 Case: 15-30934 Document: 00513777240 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/29/2016