Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Luis RUEDA-CASTANEDA, also known as Jose Luis Rueda Castaneda, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-11-18
Citations: 547 F. App'x 521
Docket Number: No. 13-40279
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Luis RUEDA-CASTANEDA, also known as Jose Luis Rueda Castaneda, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 547
Pages: 521–522

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Luis RUEDA-CASTANEDA, also known as Jose Luis Rueda Castaneda, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-40279
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 18, 2013.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Molly Estelle Odom, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for D efendant-App ellant.
Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jose Luis Rueda-Castañeda (Rueda) appeals his within-Guidelines 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for attempted illegal reentry. Rueda contends that the district court misapplied U.S.S.G. § 3El.l(b) by allowing the Government to decline to move for the additional one-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility based on his refusal to waive his right to appeal and that the district court should have awarded the additional acceptance point in consideration of Rueda's acceptance of responsibility.
Rueda's arguments are foreclosed by United States v. Newson, 515 F.3d 374, 376-79 (5th Cir.2008), which held that a district court may not award a reduction pursuant to § 3El.l(b) absent a motion from the Government and that "[a] defendant's refusal to waive his right to appeal is a proper basis for the Government to decline to make such a motion." The district court committed no error under the Sentencing Guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing. See United States v. Davis, 478 F.3d 266, 270 (5th Cir.2007) (stating that construction of the guidelines is a question of law that is reviewed de novo).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.