IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10291

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALICIA LOUISE SILLER,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:03-CR-25-5

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Alicia Louise Siller, federal prisoner # 30235-177, 

proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of her 18 U.S.C. § 

3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction in sentence based on Amendment 782 to the 

Sentencing Guidelines. In her appellate brief, which we liberally construe, see 

Morrow v. FBI, 2 F.3d 642, 643 n.2 (5th Cir. 1993), Siller asserts that the 

district court abused its discretion in denying her motion for a sentence 

 

* 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

December 6, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10291 Document: 00513785752 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/06/2016
No. 16-10291

2

reduction. Siller notes that she was eligible for a sentence reduction, and she 

contends that a reduction was warranted in view of the sentencing factors of 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) because (1) her post-sentencing conduct has been good, (2)

she will not pose a threat to any person or to the community upon release, and

(3) her risk of recidivism is low. 

The district court’s decision to deny the motion, despite Siller’s eligibility 

for a sentence reduction, is reviewed for 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). 

The district court had before it (1) Siller’s arguments in favor of a 

sentence reduction; (2) the government’s opposition to the requested 

sentencing reduction, in which it urged that Siller’s § 3582(c)(2) motion be 

denied in view of Siller’s obstruction of justice, her use of a minor to facilitate 

her drug activities, and her six disciplinary infractions while incarcerated; and 

(3) the probation officer’s Amendment 782 Worksheet, which stated the 

original and reduced guidelines ranges, provided information on Siller’s 

criminal history and her offense conduct, and included a synopsis of her postsentencing conduct. Although the district court’s order did not specifically 

discuss the parties’ contentions, we may assume that the district court 

considered them in reaching its conclusion. See United States v. Evans, 587 

F.3d 667, 673 (5th Cir. 2009). The record reflects that the district court gave 

due consideration to the § 3582(c)(2) motion as a whole and took into account 

the § 3553(a) factors, so Siller cannot show that the denial of her § 3582(c)(2) 

motion was an abuse of discretion. See Henderson, 636 F.3d at 718. The 

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 16-10291 Document: 00513785752 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/06/2016