IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-40989

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

JOSE HERIBERTO RAMIREZ,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:03-CR-903-1

Before BARKSDALE, HIGGINSON, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Heriberto Ramirez, federal prisoner # 27159-179 and proceeding pro 

se, challenges the district court’s order denying his motion seeking a reduction 

of his sentence, based on United States Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782

(lowering drug-related base offense levels) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2). Ramirez contends the court failed to obtain and consider the 

archived transcript of his sentencing hearing before ruling on his motion. 

* 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

March 11, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-40989 Document: 00515340484 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/11/2020
No. 18-40989

2

Without the transcript, he asserts, the court was unable to apply the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors. He claims: he should have been resentenced at 

the low end of the amended Guidelines sentencing range; and such a sentence 

would have been comparable to the original sentence and, therefore, sufficient 

to satisfy the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. 

The court’s “decision whether to reduce a sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)”

is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 

717 (5th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A decision 

based on a legal error or a “clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence” is an 

abuse of discretion. Id. (citation omitted). The court’s interpretation of the 

Guidelines is reviewed de novo; its factual findings, for clear error. Id. (citation 

omitted). 

In ruling on a § 3582(c)(2) motion, the court must determine, pursuant 

to Guideline § 1B1.10, “whether the prisoner is eligible for a sentence 

modification and the extent of the reduction authorized”. Id. (citation omitted). 

If reduction is authorized, the court must consider any applicable statutory 

sentencing factors, enumerated in § 3553(a), “and determine whether, in its 

discretion”, the authorized reduction “is warranted in whole or in part under 

the particular circumstances of the case”. Id. (citation omitted).

A district court has no obligation to grant a sentence reduction and is not 

required to explain its application of the statutory sentencing factors in ruling 

on a § 3582(c)(2) motion. Id. at 717–18. “A court satisfies its obligation to 

review the § 3553(a) factors if it can be determined from the record that it gave 

due consideration to the motion as a whole, and implicitly to the factors set 

forth in § 3553(a).” Id. at 718 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

The district judge who originally sentenced Ramirez decided the instant

motion for a sentence reduction. The electronic record available to the court 

 Case: 18-40989 Document: 00515340484 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/11/2020
No. 18-40989

3

from that sentencing included: Ramirez’ objections to the presentence 

investigation report (PSR); his motion for a downward departure; the 

Government’s response to his PSR objections and downward-departure motion; 

the judgment, including a 26-page attached memorandum opinion denying his

motion for new trial; and our court’s opinion describing the evidence, and 

affirming his conviction and sentence, 145 F. App’x 915 (5th Cir. 2005). Even 

assuming arguendo the court did not consider the transcript to which Ramirez 

refers, it had access to ample record documents supporting its conclusion in its 

order denying the motion that “the sentence was appropriate under the 

dictates of . . . § 3553(a)”.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-40989 Document: 00515340484 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/11/2020