Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Funaki FALAHOLA, also known as Noc, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-01-26
Citations: 710 F. App'x 206
Docket Number: No. 17-10641 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Funaki FALAHOLA, also known as Noc, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before DAVIS, CLEMENT and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 710
Pages: 206–207

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Funaki FALAHOLA, also known as Noc, Defendant-Appellant
No. 17-10641 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed January 26, 2018
Leigha Amy Simonton, Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Funaki Falahola, Pro Se
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Funaki Falahola appeals the district court's denial of a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). With the benefit of liberal construction, he contends that he merits a sentence reduction under several Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines, including Amendments 780, 782, and 794. In support of his challenge, Falahola argues that he deserves a mitigating role adjustment as a minor participant in the offense and not one for being a leader in the offense. He also contends that he deserves a sentence reduction on account of "sentencing manipulation" in that the length of the investigation by law enforcement "resulted in greater culpability than needed." Falahola makes some of his arguments for the first time on appeal. He also has fi|ed motions for (1) reconsideration of the clerk's denial of his motion to stay proceedings and (2) appointment of counsel.
As for Falahola's challenge of the district court's denial of a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction under Amendment 782, as well as any argument he makes under Amendment 780, his briefing is inadequate. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987) (holding that an appellant's failure to identify an error in the district court's analysis is the same as though no appeal had been taken); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding that, although their briefs are afforded liberal construction, even pro se litigants must brief arguments to preserve them). Because Falahola fails to make an argument containing "the reasons he deserves the requested relief with citation to the authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on," we reject this portion of his appeal'. Yohey, 985 F.2d at 225 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Falahola's remaining challenges, to the extent they are adequately briefed, are unavailing. Amendment 794 became effective with the 2015 Guidelines. See United States v. Gomez-Valle, 828 F.3d 324, 327 (5th Cir. 2016). The district court applied the 2015 Guidelines, which already incorporated Amendment 794 into Falahola's guidelines calculations. Falohola's other arguments concerning the district court's application of the guideline provisions for his role in the offense and the improper length of the investigation in his case are not cognizable in this appeal of a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding. A § 3582(c)(2) proceeding is not a full resentencing and does not provide a prisoner the opportunity to challenge his original sentence or conviction. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 825-26, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010); United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5th Cir. 1995); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(3), p.s.
Because Falahola's challenges on appeal are unavailing, this court DENIES his motion to reconsider and DENIES his motion for appointment of counsel AS UNNECESSARY. The district court's denial of Falahola's § 3582(c)(2) motion is 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.