United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-10513

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Lionel Jubenal Villicana, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CR-158-1

Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Defendant-Appellant Lionel Jubenal Villicana, proceeding pro se,

challenges the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence 

reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c)(2) in light of sentencing guidelines 

amendment 782. The district court determined, based on the analysis in a 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 29, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-10513 Document: 00516258787 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/29/2022
No. 21-10513

2

worksheet prepared by the probation officer, that Villicana was ineligible for 

a sentence reduction. The district court concluded that, although 

amendment 782 lowered Villicana’s base offense level by two levels, it did 

not lower the total offense level or the guidelines imprisonment range.

Villicana plausibly claims that he was never served with (1) the probation 

officer’s worksheet and (2) the government’s opposition to his motion. This 

error, assuming it occurred, was harmless because, as explained below, 

Villicana’s motion is meritless.1

We review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de 

novo and its findings of fact for clear error.2 We review that court’s order for 

an abuse of discretion.3

Villicana contends that the district court erred. Villicana’s primary 

contention is that Hughes v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1765 (2018), dictates that 

his motion should have been granted. But Hughes addresses the interplay of 

various plea agreements and § 3582(c)(2).

4 Villicana pleaded guilty without 

a plea agreement, rendering Hughes inapposite.

Section 3582(c)(2) allows for the discretionary reduction of a sentence 

when the defendant is sentenced to a prison term based on a sentencing range 

that has been lowered subsequently by the Sentencing Commission.5 As the 

probation officer explained, amendment 782 resulted in a two-level reduction 

1 See United States v. Quintero, 689 F. App’x 307, 308–09 (5th Cir. 2017) 

(unpublished) (concluding that defendant’s inability to review probation officer’s 

§ 3582(c)(2) addendum was, at worst, harmless error because he “would not have been 

able to point out reversible error . . . even if he had received a copy of the addendum”).

2 United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).

3 Id.

4 138 S. Ct. at 1765.

5 § 3582(c)(2).

Case: 21-10513 Document: 00516258787 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/29/2022
No. 21-10513

3

of Villicana’s base offense level from 36 to 34. After offense level 

adjustments, however, Villicana’s total offense level of 44 would be capped 

at 43, as it was when he was originally sentenced.

6 Thus, Villicana’s

guidelines offense level and imprisonment range were not changed by the 

amendment.

Apart from his citation to Hughes, which is unavailing, Villicana does 

not explain why he believes he is eligible for a sentence reduction under 

amendment 782. He has not identified any abuse of discretion by the district 

court.

7

The district court’s order is AFFIRMED.

6 See U.S.S.G. Chap. 5, Pt. A, comment (n.2).

7 See Henderson, 636 F.3d at 717.

Case: 21-10513 Document: 00516258787 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/29/2022