Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Arnulfo DAVILA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-06
Citations: 690 F. App'x 234
Docket Number: No. 16-10720 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Arnulfo DAVILA, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 690
Pages: 234–235

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Arnulfo DAVILA, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-10720 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed June 6, 2017
Arnulfo Davila, Pro Se
Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Arnulfo Davila, federal prisoner # 32490-177, appeals the district court's denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion. He contends that the district court erred in failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors before denying his motion and in failing to consider the applicable guidelines range.
The district court sentenced Davila to 300 months of imprisonment based on his binding agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C). Davila's plea agreement did not call for him to be sentenced within- a particular guidelines range, nor did it indicate that the basis for the specified term was a guidelines range applicable to his offense. See Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522, 534-40, 131 S.Ct. 2685, 180 L.Ed.2d 519 (2011) (Sotomayor, J., concurring); United States v. Benitez, 822 F.3d 807, 809-12. (5th Cir. 2016). Additionally, the plea agreement did not explicitly employ a particular guidelines range to establish the term of imprisonment. See Benitez, 822 F.3d at 811. Thus, Davila was not eligible for a reduction because his sentence was not "based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission." § 3582(c)(2); see Benitez, 822 F.3d at 811-12. The district court's denial of a sentence reduction is, therefore, AFFIRMED. See Benitez, 822 F.3d at 809-12; Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010).
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.